[ SECRET POST #4738 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4738 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Full of spoilers tomorrow.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #678.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

but i wish the actual problems of gender's construct: the push for personalization which is a method of socialization, and the denial of the brainwashing power of socialization, weren't downright rejected for the purpose of validating movement along the construct. the purpose of gender has never been freedom and you can't reclaim it into something that is.

"The light dove cleaving in free flight the thin air, whose resistance it feels, might imagine that her movements would be far more free and rapid in airless space."

Human beings are born into a society. We live in a society, our modes of knowing and self-knowing and expression and identity are determined by our society, our language is determined by our society. All of these things seem to me like they're more or less fundamental characteristics of human living-together, and it's difficult for me to see how we could eliminate those things so long as we do live in society together.

That obviously doesn't mean that socialization and social constructs are objectively real, or that we can't try to criticize and reshape the dominant modes of socialization. We can and should try to do both of those things. But I don't think that understanding the goal in terms of getting rid of socialization in general is useful or even really possible.

And with regards to gender as a social construct specifically, again, it seems to me that what gender fundamentally means is the way that society understands, articulates, and deals with the reality of human sex differences. It's obviously the case that gender as it presently stands is oppressive, but I don't think that it's intrinsically oppressive and I think that creating possibilities for movement and freedom within that structure makes it less oppressive.

[meadowphoenix]

You mistake my point. I don't think that ordering society is fundamentally oppressive. I mean ordering society based on gender was meant to be and can only an oppressive system. And not just because the system was meant to deprive one sex of social power. You cannot universalize socially mandated occupation based on irrelevant inherent biology and mean it to be fulfilling for everyone. You can't.

Furthermore, it's offensive to presume that personalization is applicable for everyone. Personalization of gender is meant to have people accept socialization, because they took on the identity of gender and therefore the socialization meant to enforce it. But that's not universal either, and it's destructive to tell people living under an oppressive system that their aversion or indifference to movement means they identify within that oppression. More to the point, to many people, gender simply isn't a personal identity. And socialization isn't something you can avoid by rejecting the premise of the socialization. That's the point of it. To enforce gender rules regardless of personal aversions.

it seems to me that what gender fundamentally means is the way that society understands, articulates, and deals with the reality of human sex differences
But gender isn't just dealing with sex differences, and it's not an intellectually honest attempt to understand or articulate. It's prescribing social occupation based on those differences. "Dealing" with sex differences would mean an already nonexistent concept of gender, because they wouldn't expect universalization. To allow movement under the current rules does absolutely nothing for those who have no desire for movement AND ALSO do not fit the rules. It will never be less oppressive to tell people that the gender rules for what is man and woman are inherent, even if that was meant to allow people to find the gender for which they apply. There's nothing inherent about it, and any system that tries to link biology (of any sort psychological included) to social prescription is never going to be less restrictive

[(Anonymous)]

Gender does not intrinsically prescribe social occupation based on sex differences. Social concepts do not intrinsically entail universalization. Accepting the existence of social constructs as an inherent part of human existence does not presuppose that specific social constructs have inherent, fundamental validity or can't be changed. And trans people, and trans rights, are not based on the presupposition that gender is prescriptive or inherent. Trans people are generally making the system less, and not more, prescriptive. Especially the ones who are also committed to non-binary gender existing.

[meadowphoenix]

Look you’ll be unsurprised that I don’t agree. To me, you’re acting as if gender was a natural consequences of sex difference, but it was constructed and therefore done so deliberately for a social purpose, which you now deny (its like saying a gun wasn’t meant to be capable of injury to me). But in case I’m actually missing something, what aspects of gender have you noticed aren’t for some social occupation and aren’t meant to be universal?

At any rate I don’t think social constructs have inherent validity or can’t be changed, my point here is literally that gender doesn’t have any validity. But no I don’t think that gender specifically can be changed. It does have a fundamental structure as all construct do. If everyone wants to preform alchemy on gender I would rejoice. But the point of that is that it’s no longer gender.

That said yes anything presupposing that there is an personally inherent part of a social construct is indeed upholding the construct at its foundation. As long as that non-binary gender is presupposed at that same point, it isn’t opening, it’s merely shifting. Social constructs are always fluid enough to allow this without damaging its foundation. It’s happened throughout history without actually damaging the social structure that makes trans peoples ability to express themselves so painful. I also think you’re mistaking my point again. People asking to be respected on the gender they identify with should never be a problem. Saying that their practice of social prescription validates their identity as the gender that is predicated on those social prescriptions is a problem. Their gender is valid regardless of what connects them to the gender. That’s the only way to truly open it and that IS against the structure of gender itself.