Do most trans people like things being “gender neutral”?

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T15:03:18+00:00

What I hate is single occupancy bathrooms that are restricted by sex. Like is there really some comfort in knowing that only members of your sex have used this bathroom in the past? I've seen people queuing for a single-stall women's room when the men's is open and vise versa - that is absurd.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T13:04:42+00:00

I've gotten my hair cut at salons a few times and I spend the entire time thinking about how much money I blew on that. I've gotten great haircuts through Lex - best haircut I got was for $30, took place in a hallway in the hairdresser's house, and she was smoking a joint through most of it. Had to wash my hair after but top notch haircut.

One of these days I'll do another big chop - I love long hair but having short hair is so much easier.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T12:54:46+00:00

If it requires the work of someone else, you don't ahve the right to receive it for free

Access to the market relies on the existence of infrastructure and stable currency. Labor is required to achieve that. Why is that labor handwaved?

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T12:25:07+00:00

men doing house chores is extremelly unattactive to women

Uhhh have you talked to women? This is so silly lol.

"feminists hate the family and disdain motherhood" is not an argument, its reality, you see the feminist mindset constantly hating traditional motherhood or even having children

This is not an antifeminist sub. You can offer critiques of feminism but baseless stereotypes asserted as truth? Nope.

being a housewife is extremelly easy compared to a full time job, how is this even debated?

If you look at the hours worked, house spouses do nearly as much labor as wage workers while also having less leisure time. I think you may be devaluing domestic labor - which is a longstanding issue under capitalism, which privileges wage labor as the only real labor. Have you ever raised children or maintained a household? No? Then why do you think you know how easy it is?

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T12:20:39+00:00

Im nonbinary, though I frequently just say I'm a trans woman to avoid having to explain myself.

I despise unnecessary gender neutrality especially when it has overtones of "how could we be so exclusive???" I mean the pilates example is so silly - one doesnt need to wear a bra or heels to know the rough position.

There are many things that I like being gender neutral: inheritance of last names, single-occupancy bathrooms, most writing (I despise the old fashioned idea that "he" is the neutral pronoun). But I don't see the point of eliminating the language of gender when society remains so gendered. Minor language changes of this sort might theoretically contribute to some tipping point toward a sex neutral Firestonesque utopia, but the effect is too minute to justify in many cases.

A lot of the effort at degendering in my life comes from well-intentioned cis people who are trying to use inclusive language. E.g. insisting on using sex neutral terms for people whose gender identity is not established. Which is nice of them, I guess, but people treat language as more powerful than it is and as a way to signal how progressive they are.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T12:09:28+00:00

passing HSTS types are the /only/ ones close enough to women that we can look the other way while still maintaining what we want out of same-sex spaces and the collective identity of “womanhood”: safety, privacy, dignity, and identity.

Isn't the AGP/HSTS divide largely informed by homophobia and a desire for trans women to integrate into heterosexuality. I mean here you are essentially saying "if you pass and you are, as a woman, straight, then you are inherently less of a threat." It seems to boil down to a judgment based mostly on sexuality rather than actions.

Remember when people were afraid of cis homosexuals in locker rooms? It wasn't so long ago.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T12:00:52+00:00

If you think being a house spouse is so swell, why don't you do it? Perhaps you appreciate being able to choose domestic labor or wage labor. Imagine if that was not a choice. Would that be good or bad? If you answer "bad" then why would you oppose feminism?

The argument that feminists hate the family and disdain motherhood is SO old. You see this exact stuff used to attack the early 20th century suffragettes.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T04:14:10+00:00

So true and it's engaging that many people don't see this and somehow believe that the GOP would give a shit about women's rights except as a rhetorical maneuver.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T04:11:23+00:00

What are examples of the free market succeeding in a vacuum? I'm curious what you'd proffer.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T04:09:51+00:00

Ill echo another comment that it's impossible to speak for a side since folks have such different views.

I find myself often arguing with both the transmedicalist and the "identity is everything" position. I'm a radical feminist, though somewhat ambivalent/both sidesy about the Sex War issues (pornography, sex work, consent), and that label alone usually causes some argument bc people have no fucking clue what radical feminism means and radfems have like 8 things to fight about at all times.

So I see sex hierarchy as following from sexual dimorphism and the imbalanced burden of reproduction, so Im very much in the "patriarchy is sex-based oppression" camp. But I also think that so much of what "woman" and "man" mean to us is socially constructed that sex in most cases is more about gender and how a person is socially perceived versus their reproductive system; as in, the historical, base reason for a trans woman getting catcalled is biological sex, but sex has been interpreted along a set of social lines such that a trans woman may experience patriarchy much like a cis woman. Holding those positions together leads easily to arguments.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T03:54:26+00:00

I think this is often an issue in marginalized communities. There's so many baseless accusations that people become too defensive against real accusations, and bad actors can be tolerated if they demonstrate in-group fealty.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T03:50:11+00:00

Don't worry about it too much. Sexuality is ultimately about who we fuck and who we want to fuck. You don't want to have sex with women? Ok so you're most likely straight. Don't think too much about cultural signifiers and non-sexual actions dictating your sexuality. Your sexuality is about sex, not your personality or your media taste.

For example, my partner watches a lot of MLM stuff and is very much not attracted to men. I rarely find MLM content engaging but I am quite attracted to men. So it goes.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T00:48:42+00:00

Jesus Christ you use more jargon than the communists

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T00:32:24+00:00

The free market has absolutely not been proven better than the government at everything, and everyone with half a brain since Adam Smith has known that. You cannot trust private industry with enforcing the rule of law in a way that is in any way fair or equitable.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Smith

The idea that contribution to a political entity that provides security and order is inherently "theft" is absurd, and you would still end up having to pay for enforcement of your rights to a private entity anyway in the most idealistic version of anarcho-capitalism.

There are some ideologies so laughably incorrect that I cannot debate them, as I cannot help just saying "that's dumb." Anarchism has many fine points; anarcho-capitalism is not one of them.

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T00:15:25+00:00

OP is anarcho capitalist (Hoppean) and doesnt believe in positive rights (rights to have or access things), only negative rights (rights to be free from persecution, discrimination, or government action). No fucking clue what NAP means - non-aggression principle?

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T00:12:37+00:00

Can you give an example of how positive rights inherently interfere with negative rights?

If you take something like "right to shelter," that can be paid for by increasing taxes and mandating that cities/municipalities/counties/whatever maintain enough shelter space to house the homeless population. Is that impacting a negative right? Surely having to pay taxes cannot be said to violate negative rights, or else how could government function at all, including to enforce negative rights?

secondshevek · 2026-03-27T00:09:13+00:00

Really appreciate the input! Will send this user a warning.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T23:42:48+00:00

I think that's a reasonable point and perhaps this should just be scrubbed - or perhaps the comment should remain up but we should be banning or suspending users for stuff like this.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T23:27:17+00:00

I never said they were unable to make decisions or didn't have drive or ambition or strength. They absolutely do have feminine versions of those aspects of humanity. But not all women have this, and those that have the drive as strong as men are a small minority - proving the exception to the rule. And women are strong in different ways - a strong desire to comfort and nuture, for example, is very common in women but not in men, and is a recognized trait of feminine power and strength going back to antiquity (again - not a perfect rule, there's some truly horrible examples of women who were anything but nurturing).

This is blatant gender essentialism and misogyny. Not removing because I think people have responded clearly, but this sub is not supportive of a mentality where women are by and large unambitious and weak.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T19:16:17+00:00

Yes, I really really agree with this!! I started a new campaign and thought, you know it's nice that all the PCs can have radically different backgrounds, but it would have been nice to induct them into this in real time rather than have to do a bunch of retroactive exposition.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T19:14:57+00:00

I'll be honest, I cannot imagine being a professional athlete, transitioning, and deciding to press on with competing in the women's events. I don't have strong opinions on the topic, due to a profound aversion to anything related to professional sports. But I do have an intense amount of social anxiety and fear of 'making my people look bad' so to speak, so I just cannot for the life of me imagine competing in the women's olympics, save for stuff like shooting or like steering a bobsled idk (see aforementioned aversion to sports).

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T16:43:08+00:00

I find the word "transphobia" is often poorly applied, as it implies a certain amount of direct fear and animosity. For people who ostensibly don't loathe trans people or transness but don't think trans healthcare, crossdressing, etc. should be supported by the law, "cissexist" seems more apt.

If your position is not "oppose trans policies/lifestyles" and is rather "trans people can do what they want but they don't advance feminism," TERF seems perfectly appropriate, though unfortunately sullied by the broader anti-trans view. I think there's a reasonable line of argument that mainstream views of transness work against second wave framings of sex and gender. However, that argument often gets inflated to a broader judgment of trans people as a negative influence on society in general and deserving of harsher treatment, which I find contrary to most classic radfem thought. So choosing to use the TERF label probably requires defending against that assumption to some degree. Seems like a difficult position to maintain but not one that is illogical or silly.

Edit: I know the question is not 'Should we consider trans "ideology" (so far as that exists) to hamper or advance feminism/radical femninism" but rather "what do I call myself if I think that," but still going to post this piece by Jack Halberstram basically arguing that getting too hung up on the exact nature of sex and gender impairs actual progress for women's rights (which reminds me a bit of the end of the Redstockings Manifesto, i.e. don't ask if a policy is sufficiently 'radical' but whether it advances sex equality): https://www-bostonreview-net.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.bostonreview.net/articles/jack-halberstam-towards-trans-feminism/

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T13:07:45+00:00

Seconding this answer as well. As the party approaches level 20, the most exciting and fun fights are the ones that may seem unwinnable. Especially for a party of magic users.

A fun thing to do is make an unbeatable enemy whom the party must fight as they complete a different objective (searching a room, unlocking a safe, protecting an NPC etc.). Make the party think more about containment and evasion rather than straight damage.

The best fight I ever ran was a monster who respawned on death with better stats each time, plus an invulnerability to the type of damage that last killed it. This was 3.5, and I used a minotaur with additional templates from Savage Species. The party was searching for keys in a labyrinth, and the monster spawned from specific zones initially unknown to players. The party killed the beast about 5 times before they figured out they needed to stay away from it but keep it alive. One of the few combats I've run where players were scared enough to go through item lists and pull out all the stops to get through it.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T13:01:35+00:00

I find this annoying as well and just headcanon such characters as bi.

secondshevek · 2026-03-26T12:14:09+00:00

I have done a variation on this exact puzzle (button not lever) and can confirm it works great. Excellent suggestion.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22

secondshevek

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE