I have a gigantic problem with that post. The entire contents is basically summed up in the final sentence: "Yes, many of us identify as a gender, and modify our bodies to fit that. So what? If that reifies gender, then cis people reify it more." She's not even addressing the core discussion here--which is the construction of gender and whether or not it is valid or good that somebody can take a wide swatch of behaviors loosely correlated with biological sex binaries and apply a significant identifying label to it--and instead seems to be just saying, "Shut up, you cis-gendered feminist hypocrites. Your existence reifies gender too, so all your points are moot." You can't insult the population making the argument and pretend that you've won the argument itself when you haven't addressed it at all.
This person is apparently really bitter against the post-gender feminist crowd. "Generally, my response to the reifying trope is, of course, “as opposed to practically everybody else?”" Seriously? "Pot calling kettle black" doesn't actually invalidate the point that somebody is making. Occasionally you can use it to shame the other person into shutting up, but it doesn't actually address the arguments they were making. *facepalm*
The problem in with gender is inherent--behavioral stereotypes constructed around some idea of biological sex, so that when the behavioral stereotype and the biological sex are at odds, society has issues with it. I think that behavioral preferences should be addressed in ways that aren't tied to sex, but instead tied to what particular interests you end up exhibiting. To try to fit people into two broad categories is confining and FUCKING SUCKS. The problem here is not with transpeople deciding that they are one or another, but that there is a construct and you only have TWO CHOICES.
If we all agree that gender is a spectrum, we should either abolish it and not bother to draw boundaries, or we should, like most spectra, draw more boundaries than JUST TWO, or put the "everything" option out there. Sheesh. That post pissed the hell out of me.
no subject
This person is apparently really bitter against the post-gender feminist crowd. "Generally, my response to the reifying trope is, of course, “as opposed to practically everybody else?”" Seriously? "Pot calling kettle black" doesn't actually invalidate the point that somebody is making. Occasionally you can use it to shame the other person into shutting up, but it doesn't actually address the arguments they were making. *facepalm*
The problem in with gender is inherent--behavioral stereotypes constructed around some idea of biological sex, so that when the behavioral stereotype and the biological sex are at odds, society has issues with it. I think that behavioral preferences should be addressed in ways that aren't tied to sex, but instead tied to what particular interests you end up exhibiting. To try to fit people into two broad categories is confining and FUCKING SUCKS. The problem here is not with transpeople deciding that they are one or another, but that there is a construct and you only have TWO CHOICES.
If we all agree that gender is a spectrum, we should either abolish it and not bother to draw boundaries, or we should, like most spectra, draw more boundaries than JUST TWO, or put the "everything" option out there. Sheesh. That post pissed the hell out of me.