Kulturkampf

[benji]

How are transgender and non-binary not mutually exclusive things?

My personal theory is that it simply got shoehorned into the trans movement so they don't have to start a whole new nonbinary-rights movement. And of course no one questions it because modern LGBT is about questioning nothing and affirming everything.

My theory is that it's because they want to maintain the escape hatch to claim special status where they opt out from anything that gains broader acceptance. Thus why despite TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN they constantly emphasize the trans part of trans woman. They're really trying to claim an exclusive gender that's somewhat nebulous and exists purely to differentiate themselves as an individual. 

What does "man" or "woman" as terms of "gender" mean? Absolutely nothing, it's a fictitious concept that each individual interprets differently. Hence why it's verboten to frame trans women as not women by establishing some standard of "woman" while also verboten to deny womanhood to any cis woman for any reason. The only standard is supposed to be your individual acceptance of the label.

What does non-binary mean? It means you reject the "gender binary" which is what everyone does because this is a fictitious concept that each individual interprets differently, is a man growing a beard or a man shaving part of the gender binary? They can't answer at all. Since we've already established that the standards don't even exist (in the proper society not the current cishet dominated one) this is extra meaningless as you're opting out of something for which there are no standards to opt into or out of.

The fear is that the wrong people will start identifying as whatever, like any social trends, and those ahead of the trend need a way out to show they aren't like all those losers who weren't there before it was cool. 

You have to remember that in their minds other people are not distinct individuals who are all unique, there is only the faceless undifferentiated blob of well, calling them people is more than they deserve. They have a very strict idea of what man or woman constitutes and they are rebelling against that while maintaining the comfort of not having to be an individual with all its connected downsides of responsibility for one's self, everyone else is irrelevant except to the extent that they need to affirm this.

Now, one may object that isn't this what I'm doing? I see the distinction in that I'm establishing standards of a type of person, if you fit those then it applies, if you don't then it doesn't. If you think I'm critiquing you when I critique this type of person, it's you choosing to identify with that which is being critiqued. As I'm always willing to listen to how you differ and especially how you would define any of these terms that the type I'm describing absolutely refuses to do I feel I'm embracing the multitudes then. But I'm willing to listen to a critique of this that offers a better method.