Is trans discourse starting to pivot away from identity category as the primary base of how you treat someone? This reddit thread seems to have some hints of it:
Conversation
Replying to
What do you mean?
Most trans people don't want to be treated differently on the basis of being trans. I haven't met many trans men who are happy with being treated as inherently different from (and moreso, inherently better than) cis men.
1
12
Replying to
I think it's a stronger signal of people using shortcuts to date that don't really produce the expected results ("no cis men" dating filters are about excluding certain types of behavior that, as a commenter noted, won't actually help one avoid negative experiences)
1
3
Replying to
Are our identity categories that rely on hierarchies starting to be less hierarchical?
Given that post (like the hierarchs) is
resentment
♻️
resentment resentment
seems Not,hehe tied or tried or tired 😩
Replying to
It's almost as if they are starting to realize that identity ideology was going to blow up in their faces.
Seems predicted on the idea that if all men (except trans men) are trash, that's basically admitting that trans men aren't real men (they aren't).
They're half way there.
2
Replying to
It repeats the predictable slide of feminism into radfem, "all men are bad". Back then the "cis" prefix was implied, as trans was not a part of the discourse. Hopefully the pendulum will bounce back to reason once those identifying as trans no longer are/feel as threatened.
4
Replying to
I believe that we need to reject label cis because it is a tool of oppressive gender ideology.
1
Replying to
I don't understand why any reasonable real life person puts substance into identity politics. It seems entirely contrary to the initial idea, which is that people's identity is part of who they are and affected who they became, but it's not who they are.
1
3
