i love xenogenders because they reveal how arbitrary gender symbolism already is.
we can say ‘my gender is space, cool rocks, and curiosity.’ 👽
is that any more strange than saying, ‘femininity is empathy, flowers, and the color pink’? 🌸
gender is what we make of it, whether practical, picturesque, poetry or prose <3 💖
[ID: the above text in a facebook post by MC Perrin, along with a symbol-less version of the xenogender flag: stripes in dark pink, salmon, pale orange, pale yellow, blue, lavender, and magenta. /end ID]
my gender is Marshmallow girl. my pronouns are your/problem (this part is a joke), and I will hunt people for sport :3
So, I wanted to say a thing, that I feel relatively strongly about
For some reason people get the concept of "gender is arbitrary" and "gender symbolism/expression/roles are abritrary" While masculine can be whatever you want
It's actually not true that gender is what you make of it and I feel like there are some issues with how we talk about it
Especially recently with all the scientific evidence we have, it's abdundantly clear that gender is inherent and present from birth, this is why trans people and trans people, why you can't just make them a different gender, change it
Xenogenders are a bit of a complicated thing and I think it all comes down to how we refer to them
If we talk about different xenogenders as if they are equivelant to the inherent genders of trans people in the same way, pretend that somehow someone who is sherlockgender is as much that in a literal sense as a transwoman is a women, it's kinda an issue
However, if instead we go "hey gender is a spectrum and we can name certain points on the spectrum whatever the fuck we want" tha'ts perfectly fine and fair, I think we should be really careful though about misusing the concept especially people who don't actually understand what it is and what it really means, and especially when doing stuff lke "suicidegender" or collecting other people's labels and some sort of accessory
We just gotta remember the xenogenders are nothing more than a name we're giving to a point on the gender spectrum, and that we should be especially careful around throwing around stuff like pretending that gender is all a dress up game and start using labels as accessories and stuff, because that very quickly gets into the territory of invalidating other people's identities
Sounds like queer phobia and respectability politics but OK
No you absolute weirdo
IT'S CALLED SCIENCE
We went and we did tests, we checked shit out, we went "woah look at that there are physiologicla differences in the brains of trans people, these are likely present from birth and don't seem to change"
Which tells us that gender identity is a fundemental part of one's self, we've know that for a while
Shit like "sherlockgender" is definitionally something you cannot be born with and would have to assign yourself, same with suicidegender, meaning it is simply definitely not the same as something like being a trans woman
Idk why this is so hard to understand
Things different, no same
Work in different way
I don't give a shit who does and doesn't respect me, I don't give a shit what other people think, I give a shit what the facts are and that we don't try to distort them
And I give a shit that we don't start to devalue or invalidate labels and identities that are incredibly important and significant
Don't be silly, queerphobia isn't a word that just means "I disagree with this person on these things"
And I especially couldn't care less about politics
biological essentialism and respectability politics has no room in queer liberation. bye!!
Core Points of the Argument:
1. Gender is inherent and physiologically present from birth:
• The author claims that scientific studies show brain structure differences in trans individuals that correlate with their gender identity. They use this to argue that gender is innate and immutable.
2. Xenogenders lack biological grounding:
• Xenogenders like “sherlockgender” or “suicidegender” are criticized as constructed labels rather than inherently existing identities tied to biology.
3. Respecting gender involves respecting biological realities:
• The argument implies that assigning oneself a gender label without a biological or innate basis undermines the validity of more “legitimate” genders (e.g., trans womanhood).
4. Concern about trivializing gender identity:
• The author expresses discomfort with the idea that gender labels can be used in a playful or accessory-like manner, suggesting this devalues the experiences of those with inherent, socially recognized gender identities.
Analysis:
1. Biological Essentialism:
• The argument relies on a biologically deterministic view of gender, which is flawed for several reasons:
• Brain scan studies on trans individuals are not conclusive and are often criticized for being oversimplified or overinterpreted. Differences in brain structure do not directly map onto gender identity.
• Gender identity is complex, involving biological, psychological, and social dimensions. Reducing it to brain scans ignores this nuance.
2. Invalidation of Self-Identified Genders:
• By setting up a hierarchy of legitimacy (based on “innate” vs. “constructed” gender), the argument dismisses the validity of xenogenders, which often emerge as a way to describe gender experiences outside traditional norms. This invalidation is exclusionary and dismissive of the diversity of gender experiences.
3. Misrepresentation of Xenogenders:
• Xenogenders are not necessarily about biological innateness; they often function as metaphors or ways to describe personal experiences with gender that don’t fit into binary or even traditional nonbinary categories. The criticism of “sherlockgender” as frivolous may stem from misunderstanding their purpose.
4. Gatekeeping Language:
• The author seems to gatekeep what counts as “real” gender based on their interpretation of science. This risks aligning with conservative arguments that invalidate trans identities using the same essentialist reasoning.
5. Hypocrisy in Respecting Identity:
• While the author argues for respecting trans identities due to their supposed biological basis, they fail to extend the same respect to those who conceptualize their gender differently. This creates a double standard.
Broader Implications:
The underlying biological essentialism is harmful because it reduces all gender identities to their biological correlates, which can be weaponized against anyone who does not “fit” into measurable categories. It risks excluding trans people who don’t align with the findings of brain studies, reinforcing cisnormative frameworks. Moreover, it dismisses the validity of identities like xenogenders, which challenge traditional gender frameworks and expand our understanding of gender beyond strict binaries or biologically determined roles.
This argument appears to attempt respectability politics—positioning “science-backed” genders as more valid than others—to appeal to mainstream norms, which is counterproductive to broader queer liberation.
