Ok I'm a little confused about sexusgender. Bc wouldn't it technically include cis people as well?
Sexusgender: “You feel that your sex and gender have a special bond with one another; your gender defines your biological anatomy. If you are agender and feel that special connection, you would be a sexusagender (ie. your sex is agender) person.”
In my (personal) opinion, there can be two approaches to this sort of identity:
1) Only non-cis (or, maybe, non-binary) people can use it;
2) Everyone can use it, which makes this terminology not indicative of cis or non-cis status.
And, again, in my opinion... I don’t care.
People who make up this kind of terminology? Usually nonbinary people. People who will see this terminology as useful? Usually nonbinary people.
Why would a cis person say they are sexusgender, when most people aren’t going to understand that and such a label will likely get them mocked? It’s not even “pretending to be oppressed” if they just use that label, without saying they are trans or nonbinary because of it, because the label doesn’t say anything about oppression.
[I have to admit I don’t entirely understand that label: is the gender defined by dysphoria, or does the person consider their gender denomination as the same as their sex (like most non-cis people who understand biological sex is unnecessarily gendered)? Or is a sexusgender person someone who considers their gender related to their personal view of their body, in which case most cissexist cis people would fit the label? But, still, there are many labels this question could apply to, like precique or salugender.]
Like, when people coin these sorts of labels (”a gender that is related to/feels like [something a cis person could definitely experience]”), they can specify only trans/nonbinary/non-cis people can use it, but I don’t see why should anyone stress over something so irrelevant. (Not saying you are.)
~ Tath
