a bit late to notice.. i know.. :(

however.. while i do think that the questions asked are mistaken -
the desire to move beyond sex rather than mere gender
that indeed there is a lack of acknowledgement how language can translate into
violence against various
groups. (eg trans)

the article itself can be taken more as a critic from a friend to and onto the journey rather than
some kind of an enemy?

perhaps i'd say that since i am against having enemies?


i don't think we ought to accept premise of discourse along the lines of:
trans women are not women and that doesn't make me transphoebic.

Since ofcourse, it's a mistaken perception since sex - as in body - has a wide range beyond the binary as gender, imho.

However, i also think this position can come with the flexibility and beyond binarity it promotes?

to question willingness to engage via focus on subject beyond what makes X sex X rather than Z.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!