Remember the gender unicorn? This is it but actually accurate. And answering the question before someone asks - yes, the creator of this piece was harrased by TRA's and so called "enbies" for creating this.

submitted by [deleted] from i.imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BrNated 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Agreed. I think this is a step in the right direction but not quite there yet.

I'd personally define sex on which gamete (sperm or ova) that the body is designed around making in order to clear up that changing your bodily appearance with SRS or hormones doesn't change your sex. A modified penis is not a actual vagina and modified vagina with arm skin slapped on it is not a penis. One will still have male/female bone structure and without constant medication, one's body will still slowly attempt to revert back to their natural born sex.

The only case where it makes sense to "assign" sex is for intersex people and even then, intersex people can still accurately be labeled male or female most of the time (i.e. most intersex people still have reproductive systems/bodies that correspond much more to one of the two sexes; there are zero cases of true hermaphrodites with functioning reproductive organs of both sexes).

Also I generally agree with the sex =!= gender thing though I did once read an interesting interpretation on a GCdebatesQT forum that argued sex == gender. Basically what they argued was that even if a man performed the "female gender" expectations such as wearing a dress and "taking care of the home," that still wouldn't mean they're female gender but rather a subset of the male gender. Basically how they defined gender was based off what sex a person/society perceives you as (e.g. wearing makeup and wearing dresses as a man just places you in a subcategory of the male gender, just not the stereotypical one which is why two people of different sexes doing the same thing are treated differently)... or maybe I'm just too far down this rabbit hole...

[–]snakeswithfur 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Where I live, there's no distinguishing between sex and gender(well, not in the public), and men wearing makeup isn't odd. We see it in the GC way, I guess, a man wearing a dress doesn't mean he's doing feminine, it just mean he wears dresses. We don't see him as a subset of men and he is no less of a man like Rock.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basically what they argued was that even if a man performed the "female gender" expectations such as wearing a dress and "taking care of the home," that still wouldn't mean they're female gender but rather a subset of the male gender.

Bingo! And expanding on that observation with a recent shower-thought: much of the seemingly-inexplicable above-the-law status enjoyed by "transwomen" may be attributable to this.

Since the fact that they're guys is almost always painfully obvious, "transwomen" in fact continue to be assigned the male gender-role (as it's socially-determined based on sex), and treated accordingly.

It's just that this is then combined with "transwoman-ness", which also grants them license to act in ways normally prohibited by the male gender-role (such as wearing dresses and makeup).

Result: male privilege... but MINUS any of the usual restrictions. Cuz "trans". So their sense of entitlement literally knows no bounds.

And despite all the endless TWAW-ing... they do tend to act like unchecked masculine prerogative in human form, don't they?