New York Times article

[thatdamnwoman]

Article in the New York Times about how being gender fluid is the new fashion and marketing trend:

'Why settle for being a man or a woman when you can locate yourself more exactly along the arc of gender identity? And, on another axis, why limit your sexual expression to a single definition when you can glissade along the Kinsey scale?'

Would this attitude be acceptable if it related to the colour of a person's skin (today I think I'll be brown, tomorrow white, the day after black) or disability?

There's a section on Sissy-power in which a transgender marketing consultant says:

“But you can also think about this” — the emergence of a marketplace — “in terms of people looking for socially acceptable ways to bust out of gender constrictions,” Mr. Rose said. “And one way to do that is to enjoy consuming gender nonconforming experience.”

Here's the link.

www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/style/gender-nonbinary-brand-marketing.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage

I think you can read a couple of articles for free if you're not a subscriber.

So we've moved from body dysmorphia and mental health issues that affect a few to a fashion and marketing trend that looks likely to erode the rights of half the world's population. I guess at least it's saying what some of us have suspected for a long time.

Stonewall: you threw all the lesbians and gays under the bus for a fashion statement.

It's a hyper capitalist ideology all right: separating us all into nicely delineated market segments.

How anybody could find this progressive entirely escapes me.

If you ever want any proof whatsoever that it's not such a tiny amount of people, you don't even need to worry about it, it's that they are being marketed to. That doesn't happen to niche markets. Bill who dresses like a dog on Thursdays doesn't have advertisers banging on his door.

Reading that article, the people they talk to all seem to be playing with gender in the way people did in the 80s. But the difference between then and now is that in the 80s everyone knew what sex they were, regardless of gender presentation. Now, people seem to think that they have somehow changed their sex when they play with gender. And then they go on about how gender and sex are different, when what they are actually doing is conflating the two.

Yes, I agree. It would all be fine except for this insistence that TWAW and all the loss of rights for women that follows.

It's just so utterly demeaning to be treated as if we are stupid. To be told that genderfeelz = sex

“But you can also think about this” the emergence of a marketplace “in terms of people looking for socially acceptable ways to bust out of gender constrictions,” Mr. Rose said. “And one way to do that is to enjoy consuming gender nonconforming experience.”

But isn't this exactly what GCs say? Dress as you wish, behave according to whichever gender-stereotype you wish. Doing so doesn't change your sex and doesn't entitle you to access to the requirements of the sex whose behaviour you are copying.

(BTW I am GC. TWAM)

But isn't this exactly what GCs say? Dress as you wish, behave according to whichever gender-stereotype you wish. Doing so doesn't change your sex and doesn't entitle you to access to the requirements of the sex whose behaviour you are copying.

This is what I don't understand. They say sex and gender are not the same (I agree). But then they say that because they are gender non conforming, that someone is not a man, they're a woman, or they're not a woman, they're non-binary.

I would say that someone could be a man (sex) with a feminine personality/presentation (gender). Or someone could be a woman (sex) with a non-binary personality/presentation (gender).

They say that sex and gender are different, then say that changing their gendered presentation changes their sex. Maybe someone who believes in all this stuff can explain it.