When I say the transmisogyny affected/transmisogyny exempt thing is binaristic, I really do mean that literally: there are two options, so it's necessarily a binary. You could say that's a pointless observation, trivially obvious with no value beyond semantics, but there is a reason I bring it up.
Consider the following set of characters:
Cis woman with a beard
Drag queen
Butch transfem who doesn't shave her face
Genderfluid person whose gender presentation and conception of gender varies from day to day
NB who isn't really fem but isn't really masc either
Cis guy who always wears a skirt
Intersex NB
Transfem who goes by he/him
Someone who refuses to give pronouns entirely and exclusively identifies as a "faggot"
Which of these people are TMA, and which are TME? You could invent an arbitrary grouping that would sort them into one box or the other, but it would be just that-- arbitrary. Each of these characters will have such a different experience of gender and their gender will be percieved so differently that to try and sort them into a mere two categories is just plainly absurd. Even two people who are both in the same dot point here will have wildly divergent experiences with transmisogyny!! No matter how you arrange it, the terms TME and TMA will miss so many nuances of each person's experience that they fail to have any explanatory power at all. Zero utility in actually telling you anything about these people and their lives.
And this is why I use "binaristic" specifically as a criticism. The world is not binary! Nothing on this Earth is so simple as to have only two possible designations that can adequately describe them. Trying to cram human beings into neat categories always ends up flattening down people's lived experiences into easily digestible narratives instead of actually working to describe the world accurately. To quote that one post, "nice dichotomy idiot, what lies outside it?"
@lumsel on the (fairly realistic) chance that you didn't already know: Even binary isn't that binary - bits being 1 or 0 is an abstraction over a significantly more complex reality, and if you do EE work to actually design chips, you'll find that the VHDL spec for the std_logic type (think: boolean) has 9 different values for what higher levels just think of as "true/false" (And even that is still a simplification of the actual switching characteristics of the underlying physical circuit instantiated in reality.)
And it's not like simplifying assumptions are never useful or valid, but it drives me up the wall when people insist they're dealing with platonic base reality and you can see the layers and layers of assumptions they're ignorantly or willfully blind to.
"Does this matter at all?" Well mainly I wanted @lumsel to have this post to refer back to in case some chucklefuck pushed back on "nothing on this Earth is so simple as to have only two possible designations" with "haha what about binary."
IEEE 1164 std_logic values:
‘1’ Logic 1
‘0’ Logic 0
‘Z’ High impedance
‘W’ Weak signal, can’t tell if 0 or 1
‘L’ Weak 0, pulldown
‘H’ Weak 1, pullup
‘-‘ Don’t care
‘U’ Uninitialized
‘X’ Unknown, multiple drivers
Which approximately translate into
true
false
whatever you want (effectively: this pin is disconnected right now, so nobody will disagree with it)
If 0V is false and 5V is true, some bitch set this wire to 2.5V
defaults to false when not actively forced to true
defaults to true when not actively forced to false
Fuck off
Fuck off
Like Z but opposite - the pin isn't disconnected, and it's disagreeing with whatever it's connected to
fuuuuck now THESE are genders. tag yourself i'm 'Z'
taking 0 as female and 1 as male (for no particular reason)
I'm L
The X on my license stands for multiple drivers.
