The labels have the character's name followed by 受 (uke), which means being the receptive or passive partner, or in BL slang means the bottom. Most underrated organizational system ever by the way. Please show this to anyone who claims that "unwoke" Japan doesn't "shoehorn queerness into everything".
But I'm not saying everything is inherently gendered. I'm saying things can be both gendered and not gendered, and it's super subjective and context dependent precisely because gender is a personal experience unique to each person. Even within the gender binary, I highly doubt you could find two people that experience what it feels like to be e.g. a woman exactly the same way. I believe this contradicts the existence of an objective gender binary.
To clarify, I think maybe you interpret me saying that anatomy can be inherently gendered to mean anatomy is always gendered a particular way. I don't think that's true. I think it can be gendered, but that always depends on context and subjective experience and can ultimately be a valid personal viewpoint one way or another. I don't think it's prescriptive, i.e. having a dick is always masculine no matter what. I do playfully question the sexuality of "straight" men who are obsessed with cocks, and I'm not interested in protecting their self identification as straight. I do this in response to being objectified by chasers in ways that make me feel particularly dysphoric, and I'm sorry if that stance makes other girls dysphoric in a different way, but it's really not a comment on them or their femininity.
Okay, I more or less agree with that too. In fact, I think that "doubt you could find two people that experience what it feels like to be e.g. a woman exactly the same way" is a pretty good argument for stuff not being gendered beyond a personal, or goofy social level. How do you mean, "both gendered and not gendered", anyway? "Kinda gendered"?
Okay, whatever, Schrodinger's gendered anatomy??? Like I said before you can just keep thinking that any dude who likes cock is "at least a little bit gay", as you said, I just think that's a weak stance.
If you want an anecdote to go with yours, the chasers I've met have never really given me the impression that they would ever be into dudes. They have the absolute worst and most scuffed ideas about gender, of course, but what they said tended not to line up with the extremely binary gendered worldview they had. No interest in male cock, only the female ones. I still think it's a lot more productive to view typical chasers as just freakish objectifiers, the same way any misogynist man is. Their atrocious ideas about gender, doubtless rotted from pornbrain, can be extremely hurtful though.
But wow, this whole thing really just comes down to "trans chasers are just gay men" for you, huh? It's kind of weird to argue about whether or not anatomy is inherently gendered, as per the original subject, by bringing in the viewpoint of weird fetishists. But it's a point I went over already.
Well first of all, I'm not saying they are "just" gay men. Like I said, I don't think it's all that useful or even possible to try and draw boundaries around what or who is gay vs straight. People and gender and sexuality are way more complex than that.
And the original context WAS about cock-obsessed chasers. And not all of them, but some of them definitely are (internally or otherwise) misgendering trans women. And that is definitely gay.
I guess SerLava's comment kind of implies that, although everyone else basically talks around the concept. But what I asked was "Is anatomy inherently gendered". But you argument seems to have gone from "yeah a little" to 'well labels are so omplicated you can't even define sexuality!' as you've ignored and sidestepped and generally not responded to like 75% of what I've said. While trying to mischaracterise my points as transphobia, as a bonus. Drawn this whole comment chain in a circle to get back to "but chasers are doing gay things!" which ignores my original question. Okay.
TL;DR anatomy is not inherently gendered in any way and thinking so says more about the person thinking it.
Because my point is that I really don't give a shit about litigating queer identities, and I think it's pointless to try. Which you keep mischaracterizing as transphobia. You ask if I think anatomy is inherently gendered, and I just think it's a bad question.