Marcela (she/her)

Funny how being subtly irrespectful flies under the radar of the mods, yet you keep insulting after you called the mods on me. Noice. Now, on your original question. Does the article say that civil war in the US is outlandish because the standard of living is high, racial tensions are diminished, and there is not clear geographical division between sides? All three of these premises are wrong. It is ridiculous that I even have to spell this out for you, but the irony is lost by the fact that you felt the need to archive the article, which is so funny that I consider this discussion over. So, dress the world however you want, but civil war in the US is both probable and imminent.

Removed by mod

Uhm… all of the premises he lays down by the first two paragraphs are wrong, so I stopped reading.

See, this is the bit I don’t get… If there are two people, like ANY two people, that their crimes and corruptions are enough to subvert the status quo, then what fucking difference does it make if they cover it up so hard. The message is still the same, that there is so much crime and corruption in government that a violent response is in order. Are they so stupid, or so confident?

Oh they will totally NOT deny that there will have been gas chambers.

It was too woke for them. It features People of Color.

AFAIK it does three hops like Tor Browser, but they are within a Mullvad owned network instead. Not “the Tor network”. They got pretty good ratings for plenty private browser parameters, at least last year. Myself and others I know have it at least on the side for some more private browsing. It can still give you issues with many sites as well as banks TBH. Together with their VPN it makes a good solution if you are not a complete paranoid. It is good to have Mullvad as a second option, and have perhaps a hardened Firefox for your eponymous browsing.

They want to undo the making of the modern world because it came to allow the public existence of trans people. The horrors of Nazi rule on Europe dies out of living memory, and the rhetoric has a profound appeal to the human animal base instincts. So, yes, here we are.

gestapo means plainly “secret state police”, let’s use that since it has a clearer meaning for those in the middle of the tent /halfjoke

iirc it is the longest word in English language, as this example demonstrates

Antidisestablishmentarianism (/ˌæntidɪsɪˌstæblɪʃmənˈtɛəriənɪzəm/, US also /ˌæntaɪ-/)

like, even the ipa nerds wouldn’t bother to spell it out a second time, lol

You are probably both right. Iran has some type of gender recognition since the 1980s, but it assumes a binary, is medicalist, and is not up-to-date with modern guidelines, such as self-determination, non-binary options, and removal of medical gatekeeping and mandatory surgeries (which are human rights violations). Post-op trans people have it relatively better in terms of social inclusion, but we must understand that prejudice and bias is a complex thing. This is not removed by any law, take the black liberation movement in the US for example. Even though slavery was abolished and civil rights were given later, to this day the cancer of racism has not left the country, and this is reflected in incarceration rates too. Being myself transgender and having had skirmishes with the law both before and after transition, I know first hand that as a perceived majority person one enjoys a level of leniency, but when being in the minority people want to make a point that “you don’t get preferential treatment for being trans”, and use the law in its full extent, which is the informal equivalent of mandatory minimums.

Thanks, really. I don’t know if we are making progress collectively, but I think that “weaponized sincerity” (which I could be seen as doing) is one of the harmful things we can inflict ourselves on our safe spaces and fenced communities. In some sense it is as important as keeping channers out. Count me in for this deep digging into what we really want to express, and yes a motivation of mine was that I don’t want to concede to transphobic discourses that frame all this nuance as immaterial.

Truth to the point:

The terminology is so messy and it seems like every time we try to create a more inclusive umbrella term, it just becomes the new term for “trans people who medically and socially transition” (i.e. what “transsexual” used to mean).

Isn’t this exactly what ableism/racism is doing to all euphemisms? The reason there is conflation is the cisgenderism in this case. And this is exactly why we have to fight for nuance. (Although weaponized sincerity is not the way to achieve it.)

Part of this is the lumping together of GNC identities. If we take some distance from current events, we may recall that not long ago they also lumped gay and trans together. Transphobes are actively fighting against the representation of yet more different identities (intersex, asexual, non-binary, …), so we have good political reasons to not take the shortcut and lump the plethora of identities together ourselves. But this is different than third-gendering. If there are not two genders to start with, then there can’t be “a” third gender either. It all comes down to how you define gender, and I think it is a multivariate distribution of both biological and cultural factors. The “two” genders are modes of this distribution, biologically and socially. That was the hard part. The simple version of this is that, instead of a third gender, we recognize positions on a spectrum.

I wanted to check in on this and see what this means exactly. So, one way I understand this is that you’re saying all gender non-conforming / trans* folks are dehumanized by third-gendering. At face value I understand what you mean intuitively - there is a tendency for cis people to feel uncomfortable with people who are not conformist in their gender, and they then theorize or think about these people as a “third” gender - an example might be the Thai katoey who are not respected or seen as women, but instead are referred to as effeminate men in some kind of third gender category (not “real men”, but not women either).

The reason I believe third-gendering is dehumanizing for all GNC people is because “being natively one of the two genders” is taken as an essential feature of being human. There are some studies showing that. But also culturally you see that villains or evil entities tend to be pictured as androgynous, effeminate, agender, etc. Come to think of it, the depiction of a literal demon is more often than not a beautiful woman speaking in a man’s voice! So third-gendering GNC people literally subtracts one feature that makes them “human” in the court of cisgenderism, and we can’t condone dehumanization. We should instead delegitimize binary bioessentialism , and normalize non-cis and non-binary identities.

Last but not least, see the confusion around the term “bisexual”. Some consider the term trans exclusionary, because internally they are third-gendering binary trans people. Others consider it trans-binary inclusive, but still use it to exclude intersex/non-binary people. This is how the term “pansexual” came to be. But certainly, people using pansexual in order to include trans women, they are invalidating our gender identities. I don’t have all the answers, but it seems that it all stems from AGAB essentialism. We either fight that, or there will be no progress for our rights. The pre-2025 situation was ridden with all this confusion and a shallow, moralized “acceptance” that has proved to be so fragile, because the tenets of cisgenderist binary bioessentialism were never challenged in the mainstream to start with.

Finally, two clarifications.

1. The term “weaponized sincerity” is from Katherine’s Cross book Log Off. She is a Twitter elder and a trans woman. The term means sth along the lines of preaching for ideological purity, with a hint of reverse trolling.
2. You had difficulty coming up with any instance where the 2 gender adage was used for trans-binary acceptance. I have a very cool example: Iran has been allowing “MtF” transitions for at least a decade. Their rationale is similar to many Western/Northern European legal recognition of “transexuals”: seen as an encoding mistake, where the true gender is the psychological one, instead of the external genitalia. There is not necessary room for intersex or non-binary people in these definitions. But the current wave of militant cisgenderism (TERFism if you will) is a post-2016 ideology.

So while I don’t disagree with your point that third-gendering can be invalidating to some binary trans people (and the author was being lazy / over-simplifying / ignorant and thus could have done better), I think it’s a little mistaken to focus so much on this small mistake and to direct that anger towards the pro-trans author (your ally) when the larger context is what matters and is still accurate - the dominant, oppressive gender concept is anti-trans, and the author is right to call out the anti-trans policy as anti-trans.

You are splitting hairs on the gender binary

I agree with both the above. Sure I am nit picking, but for good reasons (I explain below). But you are mistaken in assuming I am “angry” at the author. I am just expressing the only noteworthy thought I had about this article. I upvoted the thing!

you are using “trans” in a way that might be a bit more narrow than I was meaning

Well, normally I don’t, in fact I recently explained that since biological sex is not a fixed binary it is absurd to assume that gender identity is.

umbrella term that encompasses gender non-conforming people, non-binary people, cross-dressers, drag performers, as well as people who transition socially and/or medically

This is a very well put together and comprehensive list, and I don’t even think these terms are mutually exclusive. But I do make some conceptual distinction between (just an example) drag queens and trans women, I think it is more accurate to define “trans” in terms of gender identity not expression or performance. I would use “trans*” or “GNC” as an umbrella term, like in a future red book or style guide.

Since we can now use some shared terms, let me rephrase. 3rd-gendering is not just alienating to trans-binary people, I think it is literally dehumanizing to all GNC people. That’s why I pointed it out.

I didn’t. Trumps executive order is explicitly cisgenderist, but trans people are not a third gender.

You need to add that “gametes” stuff for it to invalidate gender transition. Like, even TERFs made this point only in the recent years. This is not to mean that the “2 genders” adage is trans-accepting, but it does not exclude trans people by itself, as it literally does with intersex and non-binary. It is the shared set of beliefs that makes it such the transphobic slogan, and before “gametes” it could be a number of other things - like gender essentialism.

People who say “we accept all genders, we let trans women into the women’s toilet” are in fact third-gendering trans-people. This is IMHO problematic, and people with your or OPs record of curating trans-related journalism should be aware of it.

government to acknowledge only two genders, erasing the identities of an estimated 1.6 million Americans who are transgender

Let’s reiterate that the “2 genders” thing is a cocktail of misconceptions and erroneous assumptions about sex and gender. It erases intersex and non-binary identities, but it does not at face value refute directly gender transitions, unless the problematic context is upheld.

So please don’t reproduce the false idea that the adage “there are only two genders” has anything to do with the existence of transgender people, because this way you perpetuate the misinformation.

I am just adding: casually seeing two of them holding hands in commute lights up your day