The larger point Queen Emily is making is that saying "gender does not exist" is that it erases trans-spectrum experience.
Yes, I understand her viewpoint, and her anger. But "this makes me angry" is not a valid argument. I wish she'd have gone about saying that in a way that didn't involve the "pot calling kettle black, so shut up" fallacy.
saying "gender is just some thing society made up" invalidates and erases their lives.
I'm not entirely sure what the radical feminists Queen Emily is pissed off at are saying, but saying "gender doesn't exist" doesn't invalidate the trans experience. It doesn't suddenly make everything go away, it simply frames the issue in a different light. People have the right to be pissed off at how they want to frame their story, but I'm annoyed at the fact that she seems to dismiss the argument entirely because it results in her experience, and the experiences of those similar to her being reframed. She doesn't really seem to acknowledge that the core problem here is that gender != sex but that gender is an important perception in society and they use biological sex to determine gender and then REINFORCE IT RIGOROUSLY. She doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that both her actions and the actions of the accused cissexual feminists do result in the reification of the binary gender structure because she is ignoring the presence of multiple options. The fact that cissexual feminists are reifying gender by being cissexual doesn't mean that she automatically isn't. Just because something is worse doesn't mean that the current case isn't bad.
Smashing oppositional sexism and traditional sexism will achieve the same goal (eliminating the rigid binary and allowing for "other" or "none of the above" to be an option) without erasing people's identities.
Agree, but also disagree on the grounds that smashing oppositional and traditional sexism are necessary but not sufficient. Both relax the rules and equalize both ends but not offer the option of "not applicable."
I feel there is a large group out there who believe that neither gender nor sex are important factors in one's identity, and there needs to be emphasis on the fact that neither biological nor subconscious sex are determinant factors in one's behavior. Why is a gender important? Why can't some people choose not to be somewhere on it? The fact that this is rarely brought up in gender theory discussions bothers me a lot. Important, if rather subtle requirement.
no subject
Yes, I understand her viewpoint, and her anger. But "this makes me angry" is not a valid argument. I wish she'd have gone about saying that in a way that didn't involve the "pot calling kettle black, so shut up" fallacy.
saying "gender is just some thing society made up" invalidates and erases their lives.
I'm not entirely sure what the radical feminists Queen Emily is pissed off at are saying, but saying "gender doesn't exist" doesn't invalidate the trans experience. It doesn't suddenly make everything go away, it simply frames the issue in a different light. People have the right to be pissed off at how they want to frame their story, but I'm annoyed at the fact that she seems to dismiss the argument entirely because it results in her experience, and the experiences of those similar to her being reframed. She doesn't really seem to acknowledge that the core problem here is that gender != sex but that gender is an important perception in society and they use biological sex to determine gender and then REINFORCE IT RIGOROUSLY. She doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that both her actions and the actions of the accused cissexual feminists do result in the reification of the binary gender structure because she is ignoring the presence of multiple options. The fact that cissexual feminists are reifying gender by being cissexual doesn't mean that she automatically isn't. Just because something is worse doesn't mean that the current case isn't bad.
Smashing oppositional sexism and traditional sexism will achieve the same goal (eliminating the rigid binary and allowing for "other" or "none of the above" to be an option) without erasing people's identities.
Agree, but also disagree on the grounds that smashing oppositional and traditional sexism are necessary but not sufficient. Both relax the rules and equalize both ends but not offer the option of "not applicable."
I feel there is a large group out there who believe that neither gender nor sex are important factors in one's identity, and there needs to be emphasis on the fact that neither biological nor subconscious sex are determinant factors in one's behavior. Why is a gender important? Why can't some people choose not to be somewhere on it? The fact that this is rarely brought up in gender theory discussions bothers me a lot. Important, if rather subtle requirement.