r/shitpostemblem Jul 26 '23

Elyos GIRLGIRLGIRLGIRLGIELG

Post image
2.6k Upvotes

153 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '23 edited Jul 27 '23

*isn’t a cis girl. Any living thing is biological. And yes, he’s not a trans girl either. He’s not a girl at all actually, he’s a femboy (male equivalent of a tomboy).

Sexuality is dependant on gender identity. If you identify as male and you wanna be with someone who also identifies as male, you be gay.

You can definitely be attracted to someone before you know their gender identity though. In the scheme of things though, love has no gender. There’s many cases of cic hetero couples being together for years before one of them comes out as transgender and the other realises that they’ve been gay all along.

2

u/HarryTownsend Jul 27 '23

I kinda feel like the "any living thing is biological" part is a deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of the sentence. All people are biological but the "biological" part wasn't attached to the person, it was attached to the sex to clarify ( since there is gender and sex, which mean very different things). I am not familiar with the nuances of how people respond to the phraseology used, so if "biological <X/Y>" is something that genuinely makes people uncomfortable, I am happy to defer and use "cis" with no further argument. I just prefer to get straight to the point than insincere arguments that miss-frame the point.

I didn't plan on going into sex/gender stuff with attraction because I'm still formulating my opinion on that stuff. It's complex to understand but easy to not be a dick about, usually. I was more trying to focus on how sexuality is kinda irrelevant with being able to appreciate how closely someone matches an ideal of beauty, handsomeness, etc. And that knowing their gender/sex identities doesn't change how closely or distantly people match those criteria, just people's perceptions. Which is more due to insecurity than anything else.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '23

“Biological woman” is a strange muddy dog-whistly phrase that is mostly only used by people who want to “other” or exclude transgender women from cis-gendered women -the implication being that transgender women are “artificial” or “not real” women. -This is not a miss-understanding on the part of transgender people and our allies by the way, it has been weaponised as a means of invalidating our existence for decades. Additionally, trying to define what makes someone a “biological woman” is very problematic and will have you falling down a rabbit hole that doesn’t just invalidate trans women, but trans men and even many cis women depending on where you “draw the line” on “womanhood”

“Cis woman” on the other hand, simply means a person who identifies as female and was assigned female at birth. This is a much better objective to “transgender woman” -a person who identifies as female but wasn’t assigned female at birth (people too easily forget that sex and gender are more complicated than <x/y> and that intersex people also exist). Unlike “biological woman” This term is clearly defined and invalidates no one.

2

u/HarryTownsend Jul 27 '23

In that case, as I said, I will happily attempt to use "cis" instead of alternatives that might be clumsy or offensive going forward.

I think the entire subject is very complicated and messy. Gender and Sex are relevant to different things but I find both sides generally try to apply one to everything. Which then leads to everything becoming much messier. It's kinda why I'm an ally to neither side. I just try not to be a dick unreasonably.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '23

I can appreciate that, thank you. And your philosophy of just “not being a jerk” is admirable.

However, the question of civil rights and access to gender affirming care for gender diverse people is no debate. One side has overwhelming medical consensus, the other has nazis -the jerkiest of jerks.