Guest post: The genderist version of the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on To pronoun or not to pronoun.

If “non-binary” has any meaning at all, that meaning should utterly undercut the current notion of “trans”…

This has always been a marriage of convenience to bolster numbers. It’s like the genderist version of the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact. The “trans umbrella” has so many identities that, if you look for very long at all, are completely contradictory. NB and gender fluid identities both go against the concept of gender as a fixed, internal sense of whatever it’s supposed to be a sense of, but in different ways. Nonbinary identities supposedly stand outside the male/female dichotomy. But how does that work with the trans/cis dichotomy? Meanwhile, gender fluidity involves moving back and forth between the male/female within the binary. How do you reconcile those with each other? How does that work? The same goes for agender or gender neutral. The whole “trans” and “cis” thing depends on everyone having a fixed gender identity which aligns, or doesn’t, with their “assigned” sex. To admit of a group of people who are outside, or beyond, or who slip back and forth kinda buggers up the whole idea. Getting clear definitions of these concepts is like nailing jello to the wall; that’s intentional. That nobody on the genderist side seems to care is interesting. As I noted elsewhere, if genderists were really interested in how this all works, they’d be conducting research on it before going all in on cutting kids up and pumping them full of drugs and hormones. But research and study might just end up showing there’s no there there, only wishful thinking and religious obscurantism.

Not that it’s ever likely to happen (as the unrelenting weight of Reality is likely to make the whole enterprise implode beforehand), but I could see further schisms, purity spirals, and purges if trans activists ever had enough power to be able to eject and discard those supposedly allied “identities” once they were no longer needed. We’ve seen this happen with the L,G, and B, who have been supplanted by the T in many groups and associations, their mission statements bent or rewritten in favour of the arrivistes. Given a chance, the rest of the alphabet soup would be dropped or dumped by the T too. The “validity” of NB “identities” is already a perfunctory, tail-end afterthought in the “TWAW, TMAM” mantra. Do so-called “intersex” or “two-spirit” people get anything at all in return for the instrumentalizing forced-teaming of trans activists? From the former, trans ideologues appropriate the “assigned at birth” terminology; from the latter, the ability to add “white, racist colonialism” to the arsenal of epithets available for use. How long would these other tag along “identities” be tolerated in the circles of trans power once they had outlasted their usefulness?

8 Responses to “Guest post: The genderist version of the German-Russian Non-Aggression Pact”