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".
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.