Okay. That's fair (beyond stating that I subscribe to that system). All I did was raise the point that I've yet to see a justification for claiming that the system is inherently cissexist.
Snugglebitch raised the compelling point that the terminology enforcement within the scientific community has become self referencing in and of itself and has made the words nonviable to begin with.
But I still am not seeing a way to differentiate these results as being from an inherent element of a system or an abuse of that system. I know that an inclusive definition is not automatically recursive (as I showed by making an inclusive definition that is not recursive.)
The idea of making the terms meaningless and recursive bothers me because it won't change how the terms are used against us. What it will do is make us seem delusional when we describe our reasoning to people who are still using the terms as they have before. Getting rid of the terms is fine. Pointing out their flaws, their self referential enforcement and the million other issues are fine. Making them recursive strips them of any meaning we can use to counter bigots without actually getting rid of the phrases.
I see it as the wrong solution to the problem. I am not denying the problem exists (even if I disagree with exactly how that problem is playing out or exactly the causes), I am simply critiquing a given solution to the problem that seems popular right now.
Keep in mind that this isn't just discussing trans folk either. The GLB side of the GLBT community has been applying self referential definitions to gay and lesbian too, which makes it awfully hard to use those words to articulate about anything attraction based.
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.
One example does not evidence of classism make. I have done self reflection on class privilege and classism. I do not think either of those things (which are present, obviously) are involved in my reasoning here. And I've yet to see actual reasoning as to how classism is coming into play in my words here, just claims that it has.
Re: Part 2
Snugglebitch raised the compelling point that the terminology enforcement within the scientific community has become self referencing in and of itself and has made the words nonviable to begin with.
But I still am not seeing a way to differentiate these results as being from an inherent element of a system or an abuse of that system. I know that an inclusive definition is not automatically recursive (as I showed by making an inclusive definition that is not recursive.)
The idea of making the terms meaningless and recursive bothers me because it won't change how the terms are used against us. What it will do is make us seem delusional when we describe our reasoning to people who are still using the terms as they have before. Getting rid of the terms is fine. Pointing out their flaws, their self referential enforcement and the million other issues are fine. Making them recursive strips them of any meaning we can use to counter bigots without actually getting rid of the phrases.
I see it as the wrong solution to the problem. I am not denying the problem exists (even if I disagree with exactly how that problem is playing out or exactly the causes), I am simply critiquing a given solution to the problem that seems popular right now.
Keep in mind that this isn't just discussing trans folk either. The GLB side of the GLBT community has been applying self referential definitions to gay and lesbian too, which makes it awfully hard to use those words to articulate about anything attraction based.
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.
One example does not evidence of classism make. I have done self reflection on class privilege and classism. I do not think either of those things (which are present, obviously) are involved in my reasoning here. And I've yet to see actual reasoning as to how classism is coming into play in my words here, just claims that it has.