this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2022
0 points (NaN% liked)
askchapo
22756 readers
466 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I believe that a person's gender and sexuality can be influenced by external factors and are not fully determined at birth. The fact that "conversion therapy" exists and doesn't work makes this a controversial take. But conversion therapy is literally just abuse, it's like saying, "A bunch of idiots tried hitting gay people with sticks to make them be straight and it didn't work, this is proof that sexuality is purely innate." That's not proof, that's just a way to get the idiots to stop hitting us with sticks, and while there are idiots with sticks around, it's very reasonable to be touchy about this.
But gender is a social construct, so how is it possible that a newborn infant who has had no exposure to society already has a particular social construct that they identify and one or more social constructs that they will inevitably be attracted to once they grow up? Also, we can clearly observe standards of beauty changing over time and across different cultures. Of course the standards of the culture that you're raised in will influence what traits you find attractive, and it feels arbitrary to draw a line at gender. But these are general trends and the ways in which an individual relates to the dominant culture they're raised in are complex and varied. Maybe someday, once all the idiots with sticks have been gulag'd, people (ideally queer people) can study this sort of thing from a descriptivist, sociological perspective, with the rights and validity of queer people viewed completely as a given.
Until then, the discourse is dragged down to chud level and the priority is saying whatever it takes to get them to put down the fucking stick.
also the "queer stuff is ok because it's natural and we don't have a choice" is fallacious thinking. some serial killers probably don't have a choice in theirnature but that doesn't make murder acceptable.
the social constructs of gender might be a labelling system for a mental component of what we categorize as biological sex; that would exist in humans who were raised by wolves or aliens or whatever and didn't receive the signs and signifiers. Some nonbinary genders are very old in some cultures but some of the ideas for specific subsets of nonbinary are of recent coinage and there are surely long-dead humans who would've identified with xenogenders or any yet-to-be-delineated terminology if only they had the words to describe themselves at the time. like how there were always ace people even though societies didn't necessarily recognize them on the same footing as the allo orientations.