Guest post: The only “people of gender” around

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on The same rights as others.

As someone who doesn’t think or feel in any of the ways required to qualify as either “man” or “woman” according to gender ideology, what I want to know is this:

• Which toilet am I allowed to use if there are only two and both are reserved for people who think or feel in ways that I don’t?

• Which sporting events am I allowed to participate in if they’re all reserved for people who think or feel in ways that I don’t?

• How am I supposed to fill out all those forms that require me to tick off a box for either “F” or “M” if this is for all relevant purposes equivalent to asking an atheist to tick off for either “Mormon” or “Sikh”?

On a more positive note, I guess I can’t go to any jail…

Seriously, though, I think the best way to deal with these people is to take them at their word and point out that by their own criteria they are pretty much the only “people of gender” around while pretty much everyone else would have to be classified as agender. After all, the whole point of redefining “man” and “woman” in terms of thoughts and feeling is to justify putting biological males who get some kick out of imagining themselves as the opposite sex in the same box as biological females. If the biological females are taken out of the box, they are back to square one.

Also, is it left wing to insist that the discrimination biological females face specifically as biological females go forever unaddressed and unopposed because even acknowledging biological females as an oppressed group in its own right with its own specific issues that are not entirely reducible to those faced by biological males who prefer to be called “woman”/”she” is a hate-crime?

This is not spin by the way. There simply isn’t an identifiable way of thinking or feeling that “cis women” and “trans women” have in common while being different from the ways of thinking and feeling common to “cis men” and “trans men”. Also notice the double standard: If biological sex is messy and not everybody falls neatly into either the “biological male” or “biological female” category (as You’d expect when dealing with physical reality rather than pure mathematics and idealized Platonic forms), that pretty much invalidates biological sex as a category. But if the supposed “gender” differences they’re talking about are so vacuous and ill defined that most “genderists” don’t even try to come up with a non-circular definition, that makes them more firmly established than the laws of thermodynamics.

7 Responses to “Guest post: The only “people of gender” around”