It's interesting how the people most into breaking the gender binary often think in VERY binary ways when it comes to other aspects of activism.

(thread)

There's this assumption that people are either with you, or against you.

Here's what I mean.

Activists often act as if everyone in a marginalized community thinks the same way on important issues. But, they *don't*.

For example: It's easy to tell that the trans community is not in complete agreement on fundamental things. There's ongoing, active debate.

And I mean, FUNDAMENTAL things. The meaning of "man" or "woman." Usage of the words transsexual vs. transgender. What it means to be "male" or "female." Even what it means to be trans!

The trans community is very much NOT on a consensus on how to use these terms, or on what is considered offensive.

Here's a video that gives you a small taste of that intellectual diversity. (Take note of the comments from other trans folks!)

You'll see people all the time talk about "listening to trans people" but what they really mean is "listen to the trans people who agree with me personally" and "ignore and insult trans people who think differently."

What if "listen to trans people" actually meant "listen to the wide intellectual diversity in the trans community, and come to your own conclusions on things based on the best arguments"?

You can't go around championing the principle of "listening" to a community if you are literally, actively blocking out voices from that community that inconvenience you.

And I'm just using the trans community as an example. This applies to all sorts of marginalized groups. Let's take another random example: Bisexual folks.

The bisexual community has internal disagreements, too, though from what I can tell, this seems to be less pronounced than in the trans community. (I could be wrong here! I don't have stats, just observations.)

A very fundamental issue that some bi people disagree on is *the actual definition of bisexual.*

For some, "bisexual" means "attraction to both sexes" (male and female). For others, it means "attraction to two or more genders" (which may or may not include both sexes).

There are interesting and sophisticated arguments in defense of both arguments. But one definition (the latter) is more popular right now with online activists.

Because of the (hypocritically) binary way of thinking these activists often engage in, the other definition is branded as not just different or wrong, but bigoted. All the nuances are swept aside and discarded.

I've seen with my own eyes on this platform bisexual people getting called biphobic, and trans people getting called transphobic, because they disagreed with someone on how to define their OWN IDENTITY.

WOW.

Someone isn't your enemy just because they disagree with you over a minor point of definitions.

In my observation, a lot of these people arguing over terms agree on fundamental principles, and place an enormous, unwarranted importance on the words they use to describe these principles.

When someone else uses a *different set of words,* they act as if they really have a *different set of principles.*

And sometimes these disagreements do come from different principles, but they're not PROFOUND differences. They will have far more common ground ideologically than not.

And yet, this complexity is far too often ignored, in favor of the much easier, binary way of thinking: You agree with me on everything, or you are a bigot, an enemy, a threat.

These issues are more nuanced than certain self-righteous Internet moral crusaders would have you believe.

It's weird to me that someone could wrap their mind around breaking the gender binary, while fully embracing *this* binary.