Robofrog jumps on revolving chair
So this is my new side blog where I talk about the “gender identity” model, the sex model (not sure what to call it yet), and answer people’s questions and stuff (ask box is open).
My new side blog.
- Consequently, creating a genuinely “post-gender” society would demand either the complete abolition of ALL sexual difference (and given the sexual versatility of the human mind, this would probably mean making everyone *completely* identical), or the complete abolition of ALL sexuality and sexual identity, to the point that human difference would no longer be considered sexually significant, and gender would be indistinct from any other form of acknowledging or expressing human difference.
I don’t agree, but it’s probably because we have different ideas of what “abolishing gender” would entail.
Crudely, the idea of “post-gender” can be broken into two types:
- Flattening gender down so that everyone ends up the impersonal same - the Mao-suit model of gender. This has all the flaws you’ve named.
- Exploding gender out into 7 billion personal shades - a blizzard of diversity in which the original binary becomes just two more reference points in the storm.
Obviously I’d like to advocate for the latter.
Contrast what happens to trans people in each model:
- We are somehow “content with what we have”, because there’s no direction to turn except the omnipresent unisex. Trans people are erased (one way or the other).
- Each of us makes whatever adjustments to our body and presentation we prefer, using surgery, clothes, or <insert new technology here>. In fact, making adjustments to your body is pretty normal. Trans people don’t disappear, but we’re less obvious, because of all the other people doing far less subtle stuff like genetically engineering themselves wings.
It apparently can’t melt down, which is good. It also produces less waste, and will last longer (providing more energy) than more common types of nuclear energy.
The person provided some links to read in the comment section, so I’ll have to look into it. Just from the Wikipedia page it looks legit, though google brought me this criticism of someone hyping about it .
[given that previous link I posted did a good enough job of laying out some terminology, I’m going to kind of skip my structured intro I was planning to do, and basically just rant]
Now that I have the ground of this “gender” stuff more or less figured out, discussions of it are no longer mysterious, because it all obviously follows.
However, I am disliking a lot of the trends I see in the current liberal model of it. It’s so odd that the need for people to have themselves understood is “solved” with (what seems to be) very bad choices of communication methods.
For now, as an example, here at this link is the subject of a person’s “sex” being handled (I think) very badly. “Male” and “Female” actually do have very specific meanings (type of gamete produced). The arguments presented by Zinnia miss the mark. I do agree that the terms like “male bodied” are fallacious, but it does not follow that the person that the anon asked about is therefore male. Same goes for basically all of the other points brought up. “Male” doesn’t refer to hormones, chromosomes, or mammal-specific traits. Such uses are rooted in a failed hypothesis about the sexes.
[this following last paragraph is my most hastily speculative, and unsure]
But the postmodernist “ethnomethodological approach" order of the day seems to be to just continue to (selectively) play along with the society that hasn’t progressed past that failure. I do not advocate accommodating the society on this point, I advocate correcting them. The meanings of words change sometimes, but in this case I think only confusion is served by playing the "how is the word used" game, when, as I said, the hypothesis behind the usage is where the error is. The usage would be corrected automatically once they know the science (and more easily than vice versa).
eh, quite a lot of the stuff I was writing about gender etc. was very similar to this stuff here. That is, part of what I was doing was some terminology.
I’ll still probably post more of my thinking later.
In honor of the white gay dude who whined that Black women who don’t want white gay men to appropriate their culture are pushing away their allies, I bring you this reminder that, in foreign policy, you cannot be allied to a country that does not consider itself to be allied to you. This is not a one-way street. It does, in fact, take two to ally. Reports of your allyship have been greatly exaggerated. I can’t think of any more cliches, so: begone.
theme by ThemesOfBoy