(RNS) — When one digs just beneath the surface of the Bible and engages its stories in their ancient culture and context, it becomes very clear the Bible is very queer.
Thanks, really. I don’t know if we are making progress collectively, but I think that “weaponized sincerity” (which I could be seen as doing) is one of the harmful things we can inflict ourselves on our safe spaces and fenced communities. In some sense it is as important as keeping channers out. Count me in for this deep digging into what we really want to express, and yes a motivation of mine was that I don’t want to concede to transphobic discourses that frame all this nuance as immaterial.
Truth to the point:
The terminology is so messy and it seems like every time we try to create a more inclusive umbrella term, it just becomes the new term for “trans people who medically and socially transition” (i.e. what “transsexual” used to mean).
Isn’t this exactly what ableism/racism is doing to all euphemisms? The reason there is conflation is the cisgenderism in this case. And this is exactly why we have to fight for nuance. (Although weaponized sincerity is not the way to achieve it.)
Part of this is the lumping together of GNC identities. If we take some distance from current events, we may recall that not long ago they also lumped gay and trans together. Transphobes are actively fighting against the representation of yet more different identities (intersex, asexual, non-binary, …), so we have good political reasons to not take the shortcut and lump the plethora of identities together ourselves. But this is different than third-gendering. If there are not two genders to start with, then there can’t be “a” third gender either. It all comes down to how you define gender, and I think it is a multivariate distribution of both biological and cultural factors. The “two” genders are modes of this distribution, biologically and socially. That was the hard part. The simple version of this is that, instead of a third gender, we recognize positions on a spectrum.
I wanted to check in on this and see what this means exactly. So, one way I understand this is that you’re saying all gender non-conforming / trans* folks are dehumanized by third-gendering. At face value I understand what you mean intuitively - there is a tendency for cis people to feel uncomfortable with people who are not conformist in their gender, and they then theorize or think about these people as a “third” gender - an example might be the Thai katoey who are not respected or seen as women, but instead are referred to as effeminate men in some kind of third gender category (not “real men”, but not women either).
The reason I believe third-gendering is dehumanizing for all GNC people is because “being natively one of the two genders” is taken as an essential feature of being human. There are some studies showing that. But also culturally you see that villains or evil entities tend to be pictured as androgynous, effeminate, agender, etc. Come to think of it, the depiction of a literal demon is more often than not a beautiful woman speaking in a man’s voice! So third-gendering GNC people literally subtracts one feature that makes them “human” in the court of cisgenderism, and we can’t condone dehumanization. We should instead delegitimize binary bioessentialism , and normalize non-cis and non-binary identities.
Last but not least, see the confusion around the term “bisexual”. Some consider the term trans exclusionary, because internally they are third-gendering binary trans people. Others consider it trans-binary inclusive, but still use it to exclude intersex/non-binary people. This is how the term “pansexual” came to be. But certainly, people using pansexual in order to include trans women, they are invalidating our gender identities. I don’t have all the answers, but it seems that it all stems from AGAB essentialism. We either fight that, or there will be no progress for our rights. The pre-2025 situation was ridden with all this confusion and a shallow, moralized “acceptance” that has proved to be so fragile, because the tenets of cisgenderist binary bioessentialism were never challenged in the mainstream to start with.
Finally, two clarifications.
The term “weaponized sincerity” is from Katherine’s Cross book Log Off. She is a Twitter elder and a trans woman. The term means sth along the lines of preaching for ideological purity, with a hint of reverse trolling.
You had difficulty coming up with any instance where the 2 gender adage was used for trans-binary acceptance. I have a very cool example: Iran has been allowing “MtF” transitions for at least a decade. Their rationale is similar to many Western/Northern European legal recognition of “transexuals”: seen as an encoding mistake, where the true gender is the psychological one, instead of the external genitalia. There is not necessary room for intersex or non-binary people in these definitions. But the current wave of militant cisgenderism (TERFism if you will) is a post-2016 ideology.
Thanks, really. I don’t know if we are making progress collectively, but I think that “weaponized sincerity” (which I could be seen as doing) is one of the harmful things we can inflict ourselves on our safe spaces and fenced communities. In some sense it is as important as keeping channers out. Count me in for this deep digging into what we really want to express, and yes a motivation of mine was that I don’t want to concede to transphobic discourses that frame all this nuance as immaterial.
Truth to the point:
Isn’t this exactly what ableism/racism is doing to all euphemisms? The reason there is conflation is the cisgenderism in this case. And this is exactly why we have to fight for nuance. (Although weaponized sincerity is not the way to achieve it.)
Part of this is the lumping together of GNC identities. If we take some distance from current events, we may recall that not long ago they also lumped gay and trans together. Transphobes are actively fighting against the representation of yet more different identities (intersex, asexual, non-binary, …), so we have good political reasons to not take the shortcut and lump the plethora of identities together ourselves. But this is different than third-gendering. If there are not two genders to start with, then there can’t be “a” third gender either. It all comes down to how you define gender, and I think it is a multivariate distribution of both biological and cultural factors. The “two” genders are modes of this distribution, biologically and socially. That was the hard part. The simple version of this is that, instead of a third gender, we recognize positions on a spectrum.
The reason I believe third-gendering is dehumanizing for all GNC people is because “being natively one of the two genders” is taken as an essential feature of being human. There are some studies showing that. But also culturally you see that villains or evil entities tend to be pictured as androgynous, effeminate, agender, etc. Come to think of it, the depiction of a literal demon is more often than not a beautiful woman speaking in a man’s voice! So third-gendering GNC people literally subtracts one feature that makes them “human” in the court of cisgenderism, and we can’t condone dehumanization. We should instead delegitimize binary bioessentialism , and normalize non-cis and non-binary identities.
Last but not least, see the confusion around the term “bisexual”. Some consider the term trans exclusionary, because internally they are third-gendering binary trans people. Others consider it trans-binary inclusive, but still use it to exclude intersex/non-binary people. This is how the term “pansexual” came to be. But certainly, people using pansexual in order to include trans women, they are invalidating our gender identities. I don’t have all the answers, but it seems that it all stems from AGAB essentialism. We either fight that, or there will be no progress for our rights. The pre-2025 situation was ridden with all this confusion and a shallow, moralized “acceptance” that has proved to be so fragile, because the tenets of cisgenderist binary bioessentialism were never challenged in the mainstream to start with.
Finally, two clarifications.