• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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 is the spectrum of gender in most ascribe to, but I am also open to there being more to it:

      And despite the dot (not my dot) I assume most people inhabit a small or even large area of the chart. Mine would be somewhere between andro and femme, about half way up the bar, and probably have an area of like 8 squares to account for my own limited fluidity.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          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.