case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-07-15 07:02 pm

[ SECRET POST #3481 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3481 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[person of interest]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Red/Red 2]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Evoland 2]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



















07. [SPOILERS for Oxenfree]
[WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for real people death?]

[French politics]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #497.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: Gender Thread

(Anonymous) 2016-07-16 02:48 am (UTC)(link)
I think that most of the stuff like ~demiboi~ and ~agender~ arises from the fact that most of the people who are making it a thing believe in gender essentialism*, consciously or subconsciously, with a quasi-religious passion that rivals that of Catholics for the idea of transubstantiation. Such True Believers are they that they literally cannot understand that the traits which are arbitrarily assigned to a specific binary gender by society actually have nothing to do with gender, only with humanity as a species. So they believe that anyone who doesn't fit into the tiny box marked "male" or "female" in terms of gender expression or personality CANNOT actually be male or female, and must be something much more snowflakey. So they invent ridiculous terms like demiboi to try and create a new rigid little box for every possible combination of arbitrarily-assigned-to-a-specific-gender behaviors, personality traits, and interests.

*which is stupid, it's complete bullshit

Re: Gender Thread

(Anonymous) 2016-07-16 05:38 am (UTC)(link)
I agree that's probably true for many, if perhaps not all, the snowflakey genders out there.* However, as a cis guy, it's really not safe for me to say that out loud in places where these discussions happen.



*Janet Hardy, author of The Ethical Slut and a lot of other books, has been exploring the "girlfag" label recently, and she's an old lady who's been fighting in the sex and gender wars a long time, so I give her a lot more respect.

Re: Gender Thread

(Anonymous) 2016-07-16 12:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I disagree that "most" nonbinary identities come from gender essentialism. Maybe some (I'd be surprised if there weren't any, with how much ignorance is out there), but nowhere near a majority. Same with the peeps who identify as such.
In my case (not speaking for everyone, obviously), the two main options presented don't really describe me at all. I don't identify with the gender I was assigned at birth (it feels actively uncomfortable to be referred to that way), and the other main option doesn't feel "right" either (I feel awkward and out of place there).

Tbh, gender essentialism is something I've been on the receiving end of, more often than not. (Peeps telling me I "have to" wear [clothing associated with gender] because I'm supposedly [gender associated with clothing], for example.)
Not much in my immediate family though, since my mum led by example by being the only one interested in sports (rather than my dad or my brother or me), which society has deemed a "masculine" interest.
So, I don't believe that "liking dolls" or "liking pink" makes someone female, any more than "liking sports" or "liking blue" makes someone male. It may be more common, but that's likely to be more from socially-enforced "this is how you [gender]" than any sort of "this is an innate part of [gender]" (plus, of course, personal preference).

To use an analogy, it's a bit like eye colour. (Fun fact: I once had a science teacher try to convince me I was wrong about my eye colour.)
Not everyone has blue eyes or brown eyes. They're the ones presented most often, but that doesn't mean green eyes don't exist, or that hazel eyes don't exist, or that heterochromia (multicoloured eyes) doesn't exist.
Some of the terms may be a bit redundant (iirc "grey" eyes are a variation of blue eyes), like with gender, but that doesn't mean there isn't more than just the two that people always talk about.
And it definitely doesn't mean the stereotypes associated with eye colour are true.