Look, i'm not saying "omg you're a cissexist and you are bad bad bad," i'm saying that the system of gender classification that you subscribe to is at its foundation a cissexist one created and sustained by cis people for whom trans people and intersexual people don't exist beyond perhaps, if at all, as entertaining case studies that don't really play into the grand scheme of things (unless you think that the the people responsible for the classification system had trans and intersexual people in mind, but i think that you would have problems convincing anyone else of that).


I support the definition of male and female that makes room for trans people, regardless of their access or desire to pursue medical transition, to identify their bodies as they see fit.

This does not make it a recursive definition; "male" and "female" obviously have meanings and connotations--which, absolutely, can be cissexist, and can be a reflection of internalized cissexism due to the values placed on those meanings and connotations--otherwise people would not bother to use the terms at all.

To be honest with you, i would almost rather that those terms were meaningless and recursive, because then we could move beyond policing the sex of others' bodies, and i'm not entirely sure why the idea bothers you so much.

It could be that we're at a transitional point now, between making the words, which i absolutely find cissexist, meaningless and tossing them out of use, but i hardly think that it's something that's going to catch on all that quickly.

I do not identify as female (or male); i identify as third-sex.

"Erm... I make allowances for trans folk too, yanno. Like trans guys' SRS results."

This is an issue of class and income level; i would strongly suggest that you take some time for self-reflection with respect to class privilege.