that I don't need to understand an identity in order to respect it.
and also, sex as in biological sex? now i’m pretty sure that’s not fictitious at all as you say.
it's as real as money, gender, and race -- it has real consequences on people's lives, violence is used to enforce the hierarchies it creates (do you know what's done to intersex babies to enforce the male/female binary?), and the actual reality is an infinite diversity that allows few clean categories. the parts that are real are the sex characteristics -- the phenotypic features we use to try and categorize people into the various sex boxes (male, female, intersex, these days, though that's a fairly recent change): penises and breasts and the like. but what's the appropriate sex category for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity, so they develop all female sex characteristics, except for the reproductive organs, which don't come out formed in quite the same way?
but everything else we build on top of those characteristics are interpretations rooted in our social and cultural context, interpretations that harm real people. we scream about genital mutilation when we talk about clitorises and foreskin but the far more savage, violent, and invisible form is what's done to make intersex genitalia look "normal", to infants who absolutely cannot consent.
that said, this is a secondary point to the main one I was making about cisheteronormativity and trans validity as a social construct. do those concepts make sense? they're more important to this discussion.
also, the reading club pinned to the top of this site is for a book that talks about all of this in much more detail. I strongly suggest taking part.
thank you for responding. you've very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
and i know i'm kinda getting caught up in one topic here but through all of this discussion i know there is only one undeniable truth, which is that we are all human. now if i'm understanding correctly "otherkin" ranges from just feeling a spiritual affinity with a certain animal or mythological creature to truly believing they are descendants of or are the creature in question. this seems to me to be much different than one's gender identity or lack thereof. to give you some context on my beliefs i'm an athiest and don't believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc. and i know you criticized me for
trying to separate valid from invalid trans people
thank you for responding. you’ve very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
I'm glad to hear it :)
this seems to me to be much different than one’s gender identity or lack thereof.
gender identity is another social construct. why do man and woman need a privileged status over deerkin or whatever else? what difference does this make to anyone but the person in question?
to give you some context on my beliefs i’m an athiest and don’t believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc.
consider it like this -- if this way of understanding themselves makes some people happy, what's the skin off your back?
moreover, gender identity is a very private thing. if someone is talking to you about their own, they're sharing something quite intimate. (in reality, someone's pronouns are also potentially very private -- this is why we only ever ask for preferences.) so do you object to the existence of people that believe they're spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures? would you respond to someone sharing something so personal and intimate with you with that kind of objection? you are free to believe whatever about the "objective" truth of the matter ("objective" because this is a fundamentally subjective matter, a matter fundamentally about the subjectivities that make them who they are and how they see themselves) but aren't you kind of a dick if you push that kind of existence-denying objection onto a person who has put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position in front of you?
this denial of existence is so core to the societal oppression of queer people, to the hatred and disgust that spawns so much violence against us, that everyone should always think three times before saying anything to the effect of "I don't believe that's real" when speaking of peoples' identities, and even then, probably not actually say so.
so do you object to the existence of people that believe they’re spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures?
well i do object to that specific belief. as well as i object to religion. i guess the best way would be to treat them as i would treat someone's religious beliefs, with respect. cause after all, the only reason "otherkin" seem much more alien to me is due to societal influence and acceptance. if the roles were to be reversed to where religion were the new idea i hadn't heard of, i presume i'd have the same qualms.
again, thank you for responding to me so much. you've really helped educate me on this topic.
right but their belief is about their own existence and their relationship with their own existence. so 1. it's fundamentally different than religion, which makes claims about the world as a whole; 2. there's no institutional authority; and 3. that means you have to be careful or what you're saying means in effect "these people don't exist".
what are your thoughts on otherkin? and also, sex as in biological sex? now i'm pretty sure that's not fictitious at all as you say.
that I don't need to understand an identity in order to respect it.
it's as real as money, gender, and race -- it has real consequences on people's lives, violence is used to enforce the hierarchies it creates (do you know what's done to intersex babies to enforce the male/female binary?), and the actual reality is an infinite diversity that allows few clean categories. the parts that are real are the sex characteristics -- the phenotypic features we use to try and categorize people into the various sex boxes (male, female, intersex, these days, though that's a fairly recent change): penises and breasts and the like. but what's the appropriate sex category for someone who was born with XY chromosomes and complete androgen insensitivity, so they develop all female sex characteristics, except for the reproductive organs, which don't come out formed in quite the same way?
but everything else we build on top of those characteristics are interpretations rooted in our social and cultural context, interpretations that harm real people. we scream about genital mutilation when we talk about clitorises and foreskin but the far more savage, violent, and invisible form is what's done to make intersex genitalia look "normal", to infants who absolutely cannot consent.
that said, this is a secondary point to the main one I was making about cisheteronormativity and trans validity as a social construct. do those concepts make sense? they're more important to this discussion.
also, the reading club pinned to the top of this site is for a book that talks about all of this in much more detail. I strongly suggest taking part.
thank you for responding. you've very succinctly written out what i wanted to know.
and i know i'm kinda getting caught up in one topic here but through all of this discussion i know there is only one undeniable truth, which is that we are all human. now if i'm understanding correctly "otherkin" ranges from just feeling a spiritual affinity with a certain animal or mythological creature to truly believing they are descendants of or are the creature in question. this seems to me to be much different than one's gender identity or lack thereof. to give you some context on my beliefs i'm an athiest and don't believe in any sort of spirit, soul, etc. and i know you criticized me for
but i don't feel this to be of the same issue.
I'm glad to hear it :)
gender identity is another social construct. why do man and woman need a privileged status over deerkin or whatever else? what difference does this make to anyone but the person in question?
consider it like this -- if this way of understanding themselves makes some people happy, what's the skin off your back?
moreover, gender identity is a very private thing. if someone is talking to you about their own, they're sharing something quite intimate. (in reality, someone's pronouns are also potentially very private -- this is why we only ever ask for preferences.) so do you object to the existence of people that believe they're spirits or that their souls descended from mythological creatures? would you respond to someone sharing something so personal and intimate with you with that kind of objection? you are free to believe whatever about the "objective" truth of the matter ("objective" because this is a fundamentally subjective matter, a matter fundamentally about the subjectivities that make them who they are and how they see themselves) but aren't you kind of a dick if you push that kind of existence-denying objection onto a person who has put themselves in an extremely vulnerable position in front of you?
this denial of existence is so core to the societal oppression of queer people, to the hatred and disgust that spawns so much violence against us, that everyone should always think three times before saying anything to the effect of "I don't believe that's real" when speaking of peoples' identities, and even then, probably not actually say so.
well i do object to that specific belief. as well as i object to religion. i guess the best way would be to treat them as i would treat someone's religious beliefs, with respect. cause after all, the only reason "otherkin" seem much more alien to me is due to societal influence and acceptance. if the roles were to be reversed to where religion were the new idea i hadn't heard of, i presume i'd have the same qualms.
again, thank you for responding to me so much. you've really helped educate me on this topic.
right but their belief is about their own existence and their relationship with their own existence. so 1. it's fundamentally different than religion, which makes claims about the world as a whole; 2. there's no institutional authority; and 3. that means you have to be careful or what you're saying means in effect "these people don't exist".