this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
408 points (92.7% liked)

> Greentext

7533 readers
116 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I keep saying I do and you keep saying I don't.

I don't know what part of this youis being misunderstood so I'm trying to simplify and make clear.

  1. People with NO gender are not the same as people who are genderfluid or non-binary or binary.

  2. If your position is that gender is biologically intrinsic, you are absolutely excluding people with the absence of gender.

  3. 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.

[–] june@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] june@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.