• VirulentAura@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s cool, except if only certain people with certain body configurations have the uncontrolled freedom to be themselves, that’s still a problem.

    Or, as long as people who do not identify with the body they were given are ostricized, there are problems. As long as there are people who are groped because their body is different, lynched because their skin is different, or kept out of certain rooms just because of growths on their bodies they have no control over, there are problems.

    Just because you remove a label doesn’t mean there isnt a problem any more.

    • AngryBear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How someone views themselves is up to them, you can’t force this to be accepted by someone else. I also think I’m very attractive, can I now make you see it that way? No ofcourse not, that would be ridiculous.

      As for “gender” and “sex”, it’s complete and utter nonsense to think they are 2 different things, no real psychiatrist/psychologist or biologist would ever subscribe to that. The only people who keep using such phrases are people with a clear agenda, also people with no degree in any of those fields at all.

      What IS real is “genderdysphoria”, but that’s just a fancy way of saying, as a man you can have feminine traits and vice versa… this doesn’t mean you are in a body with the wrong gender… that’s the great lie from some of the more hardcore side of the lgbtq world. Who are more about exclusivity rather then inclusivity.

      So no, I’m extremely opposed to the pronoun crowd and there is nothing you can do about that, thank F for that.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In that case, is “patriarchy” the right label? Most men (racial minorities, non-cis, etc) face systematic oppression, so it doesn’t seem like gender is the problem. Seems like oppression follows class lines, not gender, race, orientation, etc.

      • tenitchyfingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oppression follows ALL those lines. Oppression and privilege are intersections. That’s why a woman can be black but also be rich and live a better life than a dude who’s poor.

      • VirulentAura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t care if you call it The Wibbly Fuck Problem. Stop worrying about what it’s called and just do something about it. Damn. Everyone always worry about the unimportant shit.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe Kyriarchy works better for you? It describes a multi layered and interactive web of stacked series of oppressive factors that encompasses race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ablism issues etc.

        Though under the definitions of patriarchy men are still oppressed. Young men and the poor are held in sway and looked at as disposable pawns and labor by the patriarchs - powerful men in the lead positions, like male heads of the family, but in this instance the ‘family’ is government, military, businesses and corperations, guilds, unions and bosses. The the buy in for those men at the bottom is that even a lowly man gets to feel like they are better at least than women. The act of being a woman is an automatic sort of failure state. Hence why men behaving in a feminine fashion are a threat. It subverts the hierarchy when someone willing chooses to behave as “lesser” of their own volition and seem happier for it.