privileged as fuck: radicalandskeptical: And it starts before a person’s “self concept of...

radicalandskeptical:

How do you feel about “genderqueers” or “non-binary identified gender identities”?

i feel that they are using an imperfect system to attempt to categorize their feelings, and that what is termed gender identity might be better analyzed in terms of challenging the social mandate of adherence to dimorphic, narrowly-defined standards of sex. that said, i recognize that it can be difficult to fight uphill against a society that is (in certain circles) beginning to allow for non-binary gendered expressions but still straitjackets people to binary models of sex.

i have had times in the past where i ‘identified as genderqueer’, before i started to question if the reason i didn’t feel that “a female gender identity” wasn’t appropriate was because of the problems inherent in the concept of gender itself.

There was a lot to address here, but I’m just going to address this because it smells like the sex equivalent of bi-erasure. I think you’re ignoring Serano’s discussion of how trans people often move through intermediate identities in an attempt to not just find something that alleviates dysphoria (which isn’t 100% bodymap, it’s just not) but in what could be considered an act of bargaining with cissexist society.

I think you’re also ignoring studies on DES children, and the dramatic increase in transfeminine and gynophillic prevalence associated with such.

And finally, a unidirectional gender power analysis conditional on presentation ignores so much that we don’t explicitly recognize as presentation… your fellow radfems, even a few of the trans ones, think of you and I as former men, at best, subject to different ideal political and social rules as a result. My experience contradicts that, and if I’m not mistaken, yours does too.

(Source: pyrzqxgl, via marxnrec)