cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/19448624
Text:
All the ways people can be not cis
(Not really, there’s too many to list in a single post)
Transgender:
When one’s assigned gender at birth is different from one’s actual gender.Ipsogender:
Intersex people who identify as their assigned gender at birth, but do not feel the term “cisgender” applies to them.Ultergender:
Intersex people who identify as a gender other than their assigned gender at birth, but do not feel the term “transgender” describes them due to being intersex. A “trans intersex” person.Cisn’t:
An umbrella for anyone who isn’t cisgender.Transn’t:
An umbrella for anyone who isn’t transgender.Isogender:
When you’re not cis, but you don’t identify as trans.Absgender:
Someone beyond, between or removed from cis/trans dichotomy.Centrgender:
An umbrella for anyone who isn’t cisgender or transgender.Utrinquegender:
Someone who has aspects of both trans and cis experiences.Adgender:
When someone moves towards a particular gender expression. Includes trans people as well as people who are not trans but still transition.Demicisgender:
Identifying partially as your assigned gender/sex at birth, and partially not.Demitransgender:
Identifying partially, but not completely as transgender.As shown here, it’s definately not a binary Even though some people think it is.
I made this because I wanted to educate people on the diversity of gender modalities and show that it’s way more complicated than saying not-cis = trans like people often say. There’s way more nuance to it.
Does anyone here think they may relate to any of these other labels? I relate and identify with Isogender personally.
I identify as “very, very tired of thinking about genders, especially my own”.
I get this is a situation of I don’t understand and don’t need to understand, but some of these seem redundant. like Isogender and centrgender. Still neat little infographic.
I’m guessing since there’s no Central Gender Authority, there’s no standardization. People don’t fit into the labels available to them and make new ones, concurrently.
We don’t need labels to talk about our preferences, though?
Sure, but having words for things makes them easier to talk about
Yeah some are a little redundant, maybe because some are meant to be umbrella terms and others are meant to be more precise. Also because they were coined at different times and in different places, like how we have non-binary and genderqueer.
I consider myself gender anarchist.
Just fuck genders in general. Good luck trying to stick me to any gender.
misread ultergender as ultragender, got excited for a V1 shitpost
…I fw it
Gender may be approximated with binary (64 bits on modern hardware, 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible values)
char* gender;But make sure you’re running in 64-bit mode for the full range
No Agender?
I only included gender modalities, I thought about including gender identities too but decided not too since the page was getting full and I knew people would just argue that those are trans and redundant. Maybe if I remake this I’ll add them though, along with Genderqueer, Non-Binary, Genderfluid, and many of the other common and less common ones.
You’d think we would be at the top of the list!
If I’d included identities in addition to gender modalities I probably would have.
Everyone always forgets mine (bigender)
Is that bi-gender, or big-ender?
The post said it wasn’t actually all of them
Demicisgender: Demidutch?
I wonder how many people actually identify with each of those
Also reminded me of this https://youtube.com/watch?v=DoZFZto6Wqg
I certainly do, and so did many other people on r/Agender that I talked to. Isogender and Absgender seemed mild popular among people there, as well as Centrgender, at least at the time of asking. I haven’t been on Reddit in a while and it’s possible those people have moved on as well.
I didn’t like that video honestly, wasn’t one of lily’s best moments in my opinion. Really just came across as trying to gatekeep identities and argue against people having more individualized identities, I’ve seen people using the same arguments about xenogenders and nonbinary people before.
Many of the arguments are also appeals to popularity, trying to dismiss their validity because they’re less popular or claiming they aren’t valid because “the only people talking about this are young kids on Tumblr” same bullshit arguments used against nonbinary identities in the earlier days.
It’s weird that technically, by the definition on the post, cis people are transn’t. But transn’t people can still fit the definition of “not being cis”. I was going to (jokingly) call you out for the miscategorization.
Yeah the overlap from some of these labels can be a bit weird. In my opinion these don’t replace terms for gender identities, they are complementary to them. For example I am Isogender-Agender or Agender-Isogender. SImilar to how someone would say they are Trans-Nonbinary. You have a more broad label, paired with a more sharp, precise label.
Centrgender flag looks so cool
Im so sad im only transgender and not centrgender
Definitely*
Great graphic though!
Thanks, yeah I realized after I made the info-graphic and uploaded it and was transcribing that I accidentally made a stupid typo. I’d already closed the project though, to fix it I’d have to remake it largely from scratch.
It’s a common mistake, don’t stress it. :)
oh boy the mogais are back
Is MOGAI a bad thing?
mod removed AVincentInSpace’s comment
deleted by creator
That may be your opinion but there are people who do feel these labels are helpful and useful to them.
Removed by mod
Can I get a tl;dr on the ace discourse you are talking about? I don’t have any overlap with their communities and am out of the loop.
From what it sounds like, they seem to be talking about how people are able to identify as asexual or ace spectrum despite having libido or some sexual attraction.
In other words they are gatekeeping and opposed to the idea of ace-spec, the idea that asexuality is a spectrum. And it seems like they might feel the same way about gender too.
Removed by mod
I have not doubt that a lot of people might be doing it, but that doesn’t make it not gatekeeping. There’s a lot of people who believe in transcendentalism but that doesn’t make it okay or acceptable, and certainly doesn’t make it not gatekeeping.
Please understand, a lot of people share sentiment like this and they act like they have the best interest for the community, but they are gatekeeping assholes who believe dumb things about not being valid as trans if you don’t have gender dysphoria, or not being valid as an asexual if you feel attracted towards one person and one person only. This type of mentality hurts the community and turns us against each other, which is why it’s frowned upon, and why I and others aren’t as willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.
Thank you for explaining this so well, even though you shouldn’t have to.
Removed by mod
You think gatekeeping people’s identities and telling them they aren’t valid is okay? I can’t think of one circumstance where this shit is okay. This just seems like average gatekeeping transmed apologia. It’s not your place to tell others they aren’t valid.
Your apologia isn’t accepted here, and isn’t going to be, the removal of your other comments proves that.I think I need to remind people of this post and that this community doesn’t support gatekeeping and transphobia, including of the “Just asking questions variety”.
Not exactly a Tl;dr but:
The lack of sexual desire can be just as hard or harder to learn about yourself than sexual preference.
We grow up in a world that assumes people will want sex. And anyone who doesn’t is either traumatized and needs help or just hasn’t found the right person yet.
Learning that there are other people who never develop that desire feels so good. It lets you feel, for once, that you’re not broken for not having that. There’s nothing wrong, some people are just like that!
The word for that was asexual.
But lately, asexual has been changed to mean something completely different. It’s still a form of sexual cravings, just in the flavor of microlabels to describe what gives you sexual feelings.
And places where the first group once could connect and joke and vent with each other over experiences of not having sexual desire, now you can’t say anything of the sort without a barrage of people saying “asexuals like sex, too!”
And if you just wanted a safe space to chill with people who share your experience… well, you see it in this thread. You get called a gatekeeping asshole.
So we get forced out of once safe spaces. For wanting a safe space with people we share commonality with. For wanting a simple way to say “Hey, this is how I am, and I’m not broken”.
And with more people identifying as asexual while seeking a sexual relationship, it’s even harder than ever to NOT feel broken. There’s no word for people who just don’t want sex. No word but broken, or “gatekeeping assholes”.
And we’re back to square one. “That’s not normal, you need therapy!” “You just haven’t found the right person yet!” “I bet I can fix you!” “But you’d have sex for ME, right?” “You’re just a late bloomer!”
And that hurts.
To add a touch of humor to a depressing situation: Why yes, my asshole is gatekept. I don’t want anal sex, either!
Edit to add: It’s not to say others don’t exist or are invalid. They do exist and are valid! It’s about others saying we’re assholes for wanting a safe space to not understand sexual desire together.
Blahaj.zone admin note - I’m leaving your post rather than removing it, so that my reply expanding on why your position is an issue has context. Please note, this is not a discussion or a debate. Any further gatekeeping of other folks identity will be removed, as per our instance policies
What you’re describing is still gatekeeping. Not everyone experiences asexuality the way you do, and you are guilty of doing the very thing you’re claiming others are doing to you.
There are terms that describe what you’re talking about that have space in the ace community. Sex repulsed, sex positive, sex indifferent all describe different experiences of asexuality, and in ace communities or broader queer communities, you can quite easily say that you’re looking to connect/share experiences with other sex repulsed/indifferent ace folk, and no one is going to have an issue with it.
It becomes an issue when you say or imply that ace folk who don’t share your experiences aren’t really ace, or claim that they’re invading your space, as if you have more right to it than them. At that point you’re gatekeeping, and trying to deny them access to a space with folk who share their experiences.
I’ve already left any asexual spaces because of how uncomfortably sexual they’d become, and how no one could share an experience of not being sexual without constant reminders of how sex is pretty awesome actually.
A safe space isn’t exactly safe when you’re only kept around to be kicked down.
Your argument is reminiscent of the trans people who claim that non-op trans women being proud of who they are is invalidating to them because they have genital dysphoria. That they believe non-ops are hurting the community.
Demisexual people and graysexual people are not hurting the Ace community. I can understand your feelings as a more sex-repulsed person myself but that’s not a valid excuse to invalidate their experiences or say they are hurting the community. That stance is extremely bigoted, and goes against everything we value as a community.
Please explain what it is you mean by that, because it sounds to me that you believe that the asexual label and identity should be gate-kept and that you also believe the same thing should be done in trans spaces.
This isn’t a good thing to want and encourage in the community, and your statement “but don’t you dare say this cis person isn’t also trans.” comes off as Transmedicalist and invalidating, who are you to decide if a person isn’t actually trans and is a cis person, or that labels like Isogender are invalid. That shit isn’t up to you.
TL;DR your comment comes across as transmedicalist and incredibly aphobic.
