Fck it. Just going to identify as agender as a GC feminist.

[Metabigot]

I'm technically agender anyway as I choose to not believe in gender woo.

If males can infiltrate feminism by saying they're women I'm infiltrating transgendersism by identifying as agender.

If I'm asked my gender identity why shouldn't I say this, it's technically true according to stonewall.

Quite like the idea of being a double agent of sorts....

No, you’re the funny one, pretending that you had a coherent argument, then just acting like a child and petulantly saying that you won’t share it. You know, I know, and everyone else knows that if you really did have an explanation you’d have given it by now.

I agree Candy, you have.

Came back to see what @placewherewebelong had to say about the transrace issue as I've never seen any logical answer to that question - or indeed any answer. Sadly no further information to clarify exactly what the difference is.

Good grief, what the hell happened here?!?! Left it on page one and come back to see one person telling us all off? For daring to discuss something? For trying to find a suitable gender so we can become as one with the trans community ?

goes to sit in the naughty corner to cry and wonder why that community doesn't want to be inclusive enough to want her

Non-binary just means you don't consider yourself to be strictly a man or a woman.

What does "considering yourself strictly a man or a woman" mean? I have difficulty understanding how an abstract gender identity might feel.

After much introspection I am almost entirely certain that I don't have one, but I consider myself a woman because my sex is female and because I am an adult human being.

This appears not to be one of the boxes we can tick in the gender identity system which seems to leave my gender invalidated and erased.

On transracialism: I have looked for explanations for why nobody is allowed to be transrace while transgender is perfectly fine for all. I haven't seen very many, and can only recall two where the answer to someone asking about this wasn't just accusations of transphobia:

The first one was that sex is a real biological concept while race does not exist as a biological concept. Somehow that means the first one is more permeable than the second? In any case, I have read this as one explanation.

The second one was that because of epigenetic inheritance, people of colour have inherited the pain of the brutal treatment of their ancestors in the hands of white slaveowners and/or colonisers, and it is ethically wrong of anyone who is white to transition into the racial group other white people mistreated.

This one might not work as we could equally well speculate that epigenetic inheritance of such pain might be also shared by female people from their mistreated foremothers. But I believe that the real argument here is ethical, i.e., that transitioning into an oppressed race class is morally and ethically wrong and so is not allowed. I'm not sure how transitioning into the more oppressed sex might not also share some of those concerns.

I like a different answer I have read better, and that is that all or almost all people of colour said clearly and strongly NO when they spotted attempts of transracialism.

Women, as a class, however, did not do the same and perhaps would not have been obeyed in any case, because the transgender activism had already created the background for arguing that women, as a class, are privileged when compared to transgender women.

Not so much "the love that dare not speak its name" but more "the love whose name we dare not speak"?

Yup. Isn’t it funny though the minute I said I knew 3 letters that place knew exactly what I was apparently implying. I wasn’t, but that’s where her mind jumped.

Thanks nepeta, 💐I checked throughout the night to see if place had come back to answer.
I think reasons 1 and 2 could be applied to race and sex. Reason 3 I haven’t heard before and sounds plausible. I can perfectly understand why transracialism is problematic, I just can’t see why opting into an oppressed sex class by adopting those stereotypes isn’t as frowned upon. The stronger “no!” works as an explanation, however it unfortunately doesn’t alleviate that feeling of it being harmful to women as a result.

@ShinyRainbow

Strictly a non-binary woman, here.

Thanks @nepeta.
I was thinking about this last night and came to the conclusion that it’s reason 3.
Transracialism (is that a word?) is beyond the pale because depending on who moved from which race would either be seen as the historical oppressor moving into the oppressed class or the oppressed trying to identify out of their oppression and we all know how that goes- no one actually believes you.

In transgenderism the same is true except that the most oppressed narrative has persuaded people to believe that natal women are the oppressors of those who identify as women. How many times have we been told we’re wrong to ‘police’ the category of who gets to be a woman? It’s DARVO writ large across half the world’s population.

As for transmen, natal men largely don’t really care because again, they know who oppressed whom and see no threat.

I dont believe anyone should access womens spaces. Nor do I believe that sports should be mixed, or prisons.

I apologise for my part in what became utterly ridiculous last night. We would probably agree on certain things in person. I just dont like the outright mockery or denial, which I dont honestly think is the most outrageous views to have.

Did you though? Did you really check over night?

I really cant stand this implication that I must have run off because I'm scared of what some random folk on Mn asked me. I was in bed! I have a life beyond the forum.

This is exactly what I mean about mocking people. Ic you want to sit and take the piss then I suppose whatever floats your boat, but dont pretend you actually want to be part of the community

Btw folks I'm going to work.
Just in case I come back to 36 pages of oh place must have run away.

Place, I think it would be good for you to ignore anything that makes you bristle. Your first post this morning is great. You clearly feel the same as a lot of people here, but obviously the humour thing didn't work for you and that's fine, you've explained. You actually succeeded in stopping it by completely derailing the thread, so mission accomplished, I'd say.

Have a good day!

I apologise for my part in what became utterly ridiculous last night.

That's very big of you. Apology accepted.

I am mocking the entire concept as it does not make sense . You do realise that humour can be a way to explore certain subjects from different angles, to help find a balance and provoke thoughts and serious discussions.

According to you i have to accept, totally and fully, that men can be women otherwise i am unkind but nobody/you can accept women (or men) trying to discuss which of the many hundreds of genders they could possibly fall under according to the stonewall because its mean and mocking. Its not up to you to police my thoughts, my emotions, and how i deal with them.

If you don't like a certain humour and you find this triggering then just scroll past the thread, nobody is forcing you to read. Its the same for any subject. I don't force my views, or tell others off, for believing in a god (or infact that cycling is the best ever hobby!!) - I scroll past all religious discussions (or cycling threads). Its not my place to scold them and tell them that they are wrong.

I won't be replying to you again. You have a certain attitude here that I cant put my finger on (well I can but... you know.. I can't say it) but its unpleasant and most definitely unnecessarily unkind to a lot of other posters. Try looking inward and see if you can do better to be kinder to others who are struggling with genders and need a safe place to discuss their feelings. It works both ways.

This is all so confusing. What do all these myriad 'genders' have to do with trans people, really?

The concept of gender came about, as I understand it, as a term originally synonymous with 'sex' as a way of describing the two biological categories. Then it evolved to mean a concept of maleness or femaleness, separate from biological sex, so that people could say - for example - their gender is male, but their sex is female, if they are trans. This seems fairly straightforward to understand.

But then at some point some people have decided gender can mean pretty much anything. I can't take 'catgender' seriously. And catgender people having their own pronouns? What has this really got to do with gender? All I can see is people endlessly reflecting on their personalities and then making up a term for it. Why are we supposed to take this completely seriously when so many of these terms are simply traced back to one person on tumblr coining it?

Furthermore, why is it mean to point how bizarre and childish this is? And how on earth is it 'transphobic'? What does calling yourself catgender have to do with being transgender?

Yeah - unfortunately gender ideologues have got themselves into a position where it’s impossible for them to say, eg., yes catgender / lithromantic / whatever are clearly silly and not real, and not actually very much like crippling gender identity issues experienced by the small number of people who are genuinely transgender/transsexual.

That’s considered a heresy in the “community” (and known as “truscum”) because it suggests that transgenderism might be (a) rare and (b) a psychiatric condition and (c) not actually all about self-declaration and microlabels at all.

Hence why genderists get themselves into such knots. You can’t make fun of catgender because any acknowledgment that some of this might be a silly fad might bring down the whole edifice with it.

So we must sagely respect “Felix’s” pronouns and install a cat flap; because any acknowledgment that it’s all a bit silly is to commit a heresy against the approved gender theology, eg. that women are not allowed to show that they notice that it’s all based on pretending and role-play.

The post about the aromantic bunnies was quite something. At least they didn't suggest that any rabbits were asexual...

And yet still, no matter how many ludicrous genders are incorporated under the trans rainbow-coloured umbrella, trans-race is still supposedly different.

Why is it different? Nobody can say.

Oh there’s plenty more where that came from, they invent genders by the minute over there 🤣 There are more cat ones than you can count. Catbatgender, spacecatgender, kittysmilegender, Dawncatgender, robotcatgender, it goes on. “New gender just dropped!” Complete with flag and pronouns and everything. “Catpacifiergender!” — which is, apparently, “A gender related to cats with pacis, age regression or kitty regression, kitties, pacifiers, and pastel colours.”

Problem is that for genderists, it’s all or nothing. You can’t suggest that some of this is teenage nonsense without risking acknowledging that it all might be. You aren’t allowed under the terms of the whole ideology itself to draw lines around what are “real” genders and what aren’t; the ideology demands you swallow it all whole. Hence the “mocking catgender people on the internet is transphobic!” stuff.

But the sillier reaches of the xenogenders and neopronouns clearly undermine all of the foundations that it all rests on, and so the ideologues just tend to hope we haven’t noticed them yet and they really don’t want to get into it, because when we get to being compelled to respect 13 year old Felix as an aro-ace cupioromantic Otherkin with ze/zeself pronouns on Tuesdays and xylo/xyem pronouns on alternate Fridays the entire gender thing starts to look absolutely idiotic.