I don’t go to Manboobz’s blog so I’m clearing this up for the sake of the people who read and comment on this blog. Also there’s no real point in posting this there since all it will do is inspire an endless round of “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation]” followed by “no, in fact if you read the actual quote, the immediate subject preceding ‘it’ was male politician, not trans woman. I used the plural ‘they’ to refer to trans women” followed by “well what you really meant was [insert misrepresentation].”
Anyway if I did appear to use “it” to trans woman then I apologize. That was definitely not my intent.
Why would I refer to a trans woman in that manner? She obviously takes her identity from being female. Nor are trans women truly “male-bodied”; they are identified as “male-bodied” by society, just like apexuals are identified as “male-bodied” by society. While neither take their identities from being presumptively “male-bodied”.
I assert this because I see zero evidence that male-bodied CEOs, politicians, generals, etc. share any positive social identity with other male-bodied individuals. Instead they identify with their role as politician, CEO or general.
Is politician a sex? No. So how do you refer to a male-bodied politician? Zie is gender neutral but male-bodied apexuals(politicians, generals, CEOs, all the presumptively “alpha” male bodied) aren’t gender neutral, they are gender-less.
“It” seems more appropriate.
Latest posts by Alison Tieman (see all)
- Youtube’s first sandboxed video; white women get out! – Polecat News 124 - August 29, 2017
- Youtube Censoring Wrongthink – Rant 88 - August 2, 2017
- I’m a guy and I need feminism - February 4, 2016