3 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
by arguing against peoples ability to use complex gendered language to describe themselves
I think my issue is that this "complex gendered language" isn't actually particularly effective. It isn't useful for conveying meaningful information because it's been so mangled by "whatever word you feel is right to describe you, is right!" that the whole lexicon has been cheapened to a piece of flair. The words themselves have become more about *aesthetic* than practical information.
having a penis doesn't make a woman any less a woman
Well, if it's not the lack of penis (practical information tied to a word), then what specifically is the essence of "woman"? Is it just... feeling like a woman? What information does that convey to me, the listener, if you say you are a woman, that you have to be seen as a woman in order to feel validated and like yourself? How does one see you like a woman, if a "woman" is literally anyone who says "I'm a woman"? If there is no unifying characteristic to define a word, the word stops meaning anything on a linguistic level, a formless concept. It doesn't convey any information about who you are other than "this person will freak out about their gender if you don't get it right," so I genuinely don't know how to interpret that information beyond what pronouns you want me to use. Which I will use, of course, I'm not a bigot, I just actually can't fathom what the word is supposed to mean beyond a noise people make to refer to themselves.
I don't have a preconception of how men/women should be perceived because I genuinely try to understand people on an individual level instead of a gendered one. I don't have expectations for how a man should act in order to be a man, just like I don't have expectations for how a woman should act in order to be a woman, but at least these categories were useful when they could refer to people that met objective physical criteria (or aggregate criteria, given biology's quirks). Basing these categories on subjective moral criteria renders them useless as actual descriptors, such that the words only exist to signify one's virtue when using them accurately, and to signify who is the Enemy refusing linguistic conformity.
You can't argue for us to divest from a broader understanding of gender unless you actively dismantle gender in every other sense. That means no pronouns AT ALL. No gendered prisons. No gendered sports. No gendered bathrooms. Otherwise you're just siding with the oppressive coercive definition of gender in the historical caste system of patriarchy.
This is such a wild take to me, and clearly shows where your priorities lie with gender. You think the pronouns are the problem with gender? The prisons, the sports, the bathroom? These aren't even tertiary symptoms of gender. As we have addressed, *people kill each other about gender disagreements.* Those disagreements aren't about *pronouns,* they are about *the definition of man and woman.*
Pronouns just point to other concepts, they don't mean anything on their own. The problem with gender isn't who we call he or she, it's *how we perceive masculine and feminine.* If you don't place expectations on how women should act, speak, or dress, calling someone a "she" stops carrying those implications. If you didn't associate "he" with all that baggage *you* have with the concept of being male, the two letters couldn't even phase you. The reason trans and other queer people are targeted by bigots ultimately is *not* about their pronouns, their bathroom, their sports--it's a more fundamental disagreement about what is expected of men and women, how men and women are "supposed" to act (in their bigoted worldview). *Those expectations* are what's toxic and what cause clashes about pronouns, bathrooms, sports.
And so what's interesting to me is that when you talk about "divesting from a broader understanding of gender," your immediate concern is about pronouns and bathrooms, and not about *gendered expectations* across the board. If we didn't have noxious notions about how your gender defines you, we wouldn't get bothered by pronouns and bathrooms.
For example: the notion that little boys like cars and actions figures, and little girls like dresses and Barbies. We all know that's toxic, right? Little boys should be allowed to play with Barbies, and little girls should be allowed to be into cars, right? We should stop expecting our children of Learning About Gender age to conform to outdated, traditionalist gendered expectations and instead let them discover who they are organically, right?
This isn't hard for most people to follow. Yet, it seems that almost every trans person's origin story goes something like "I knew I was a [girl] because I liked [dresses] but my parents/peers said I should like [cars] instead because they said I was a [boy.]" And every time I hear it, a little voice in my head asks, "wait, but isn't it okay for [boys] to like [dresses]?"
And that's when you start to notice how some people seem eager to change their gender, but unable to recognize they were taught a faulty understanding of gender in the first place.
Personally, my parents were super chill and I can think of a few times in my life where I leapt outside the gendered norms and they lovingly supported me, so I never felt pressured to be a certain way due to my assigned gender. Since I was also homeschooled through most of my formative years, I legit did not have all that gendered baggage going into society as a young adult. I mean some of it, sure, but I was able to unlearn it thanks to the perspective my privilege afforded me. So I recognize that not everyone has that same opportunity and that a lot of these toxic norms can be so deeply embedded that they feel like a part of one's identity. I sympathize.
But damn. It really feels like some people be staring the problem in the face and say, "no, it's the pronouns, that's what's wrong."
Comment by [deleted] at 14/01/2025 at 00:43 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by DogEnthusiast3000 at 14/01/2025 at 12:12 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Damn, I wish I could give you an award for this and all your other well thought-out comments 👏🏼 Take my heartfelt appreciation instead 🎁
Comment by PotsAndPandas at 14/01/2025 at 22:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yet, it seems that almost every trans person's origin story goes something like "I knew I was a [girl] because I liked [dresses] but my parents/peers said I should like [cars] instead because they said I was a [boy.]" And every time I hear it, a little voice in my head asks, "wait, but isn't it okay for [boys] to like [dresses]?"
You've misunderstood people recognising signs they are trans for the root causes. It's not "I'm trans because I like dresses" it's "I'm trans, and one of the earliest signs was not aligning with gendered norms being pushed on me".
Like others have said, we are intensely social creatures prone to irrational action to conform with one another. This instinct to conform is so strong that you can be compelled to provide an incorrect answer to a question purely based on enough people being incorrect around you.
It's not illogical to think that this instinct can apply to gender, meaning that the push to conform with a gender/ sex you weren't born as may exist. This is what people say they experience initially, which then as your sense of self and others develops can progress to full gender dysphoria.
In other words, it's not that boys can't like dresses, its the actual drive behind liking them that matters.
Comment by TheEgolessEgotist at 13/01/2025 at 23:14 UTC
-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Idk why you're strawman-ing my argument into being about pronouns. My argument is that defaulting to a coercive and violent social caste system as an acceptable way for people to classify each other is what leads to the violence you are talking about.
A trans butch is a trans butch because she knows she's trans and butch. It's not that hard.
You are choosing to doubt the lived experience of trans people because you don't understand us. If you can't accept us as we are, you are being inherently disrespectful to us and our ability to define ourselves.
You are inconsistent with your inability to recognize that gender is a social construct in that the genders you believe in are too socially constructed. You make us responsible for the violence done to us, rather than holding accountable those who perpetrate violence against us. I am unwilling to argue with you further for these reasons.