this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
408 points (92.9% liked)
> Greentext
7574 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
... Did I say I don't believe their stated gender?
You're being extremely obnoxious about what you perceived to be a contradiction because you keep making shit up about what I believe. I already told you I didn't want to continue this discussion twice. I would rather not block you but this is getting ridiculous.
Yes. You did. When you reworded your "I believe all trans people" to "believe all trans people are trans" you did that explicitly because you were highlighting believing them on the trans part but not on the rest.
If you don't believe that they are not genderfluid, or that they are genderless (because you believe that gender is biologically intrinsic), then you do not believe their stated gender.
... Are you being intentionally obtuse? I never fucking said I don't believe in a gender or gender fluidity. I keep saying I do and you keep saying I don't. The only reason haven't just blocked your ass and moved on is because I know you are generally a good faith poster from experience... Not the rest? Are you fucking serious? Please, try not to be this way. This is embarrassing.
I believe they are trans and that they are the gender they say they are (or have no gender), and I believe they can be fluid or not or anywhere between. Why the hell you think otherwise is your own evidently terrible reading comprehension.
I don't believe they are correct if they say they were made trans by external forces. That is IT. I said I don't necessarily believe very aspect of their narrative about how they became trans because people generally aren't that self aware. I had a conversation with a trans person in this very thread where they said they believed they were made trans and by the end of it they realized they were wrong. And I didn't at any point tell them that their gender was wrong or that they weren't trans, because I would never do that.
This is the last time I'm going to bother with you: Quote two statements I made that contradict, not via your own special interpretation but statements I have made and will defend, or kindly leave me alone. Stop being a fucking troll.
Edit: fwiw my app doesn't show display names or I would have probably assumed you were trans. Sorry about thinking you were cis. Sorry if this gives you dysphoria when you see my username in the future. Feel absolutely more than free to just block me to prevent that. If you come back with the same tired shit I will be blocking you after this. Oh, and feel free to block @june@hexbear.net as well as I might start using that soon.
I don't know what part of this youis being misunderstood so I'm trying to simplify and make clear.
People with NO gender are not the same as people who are genderfluid or non-binary or binary.
If your position is that gender is biologically intrinsic, you are absolutely excluding people with the absence of gender.
If you still believe those people are trans, but do not believe their interpretation is correct, then you do not believe their stated lack of gender.
These are roughly the things I'm trying to get across here. This is where the contradiction I am raising lies.
Ah. So you're misunderstanding what I mean by it being biological in nature. It being biological doesn't mean that there are only two or anything like that. Gender, physical sex, and sexuality, (and probably damn near everything that goes in to who a person is) is on a multiaxal spectrum and people inhabit different areas of this. Those different areas appear to be determined by processes during fetal development. You can be born without sexuality but it is also biological in nature. Does this clarify the confusion here?
This chart concerns me. Are you saying that "being masculine" and "being feminine" are biological? Not just gender? Can you define "being masculine" and "being feminine" without being gender-essentialist?
I'm veering off a bit, because we weren't talking about masculinity or femininity at all a moment ago, but these are 100% socially created things and to argue about them from a biological perspective requires being a gender-essentialist.
If not, I would err away from "masculine" and "feminine" as descriptors of gender itself.
Ugh. Seriously? It's just a chart attempting to simplify people's gender identity and I even said I see it as more 3D and complex than it is. I'm not going to discuss the merits of the chart. I deleted the whole part about the stupid chart because it doesn't matter and I don't care to defend it.
This conversation is over. You pivoted because you know your baseless accusations have been disproven. In the future, try not to be such an annoying asshole when you simply don't understand someone else's viewpoint. Goodbye.
I veered off because it seems like a bigger issue, I was gonna come back around. It's a conversation it's how conversation usually tends to work when it's just two people talking to one another rather than reddit culture debate bro shit or the soapboxing people do where they talk past someone to the audience instead of to the person they're actually responding to.
Are people born inherently feminine or masculine or not ? It being 3d doesn't seem to matter here but rather that feminine and masculine being a component of gender at all forces me to ask the question. Either the answer is yes which is all kinds of fucked up, or the answer is no and we've found a component of gender that you agree is socially created.