• Skydancer@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    A well argued point. Could have done without the random transphobic comments about “transsexuals” and “perceived gender”.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The author is Danish, are you so certain that this isnt just slightly awkward usage of a second laguage that you are willing to throw transphobic at them as an insult?

      • Skydancer@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        No - it was the language that I said was transphobic, not the author. Given that there were two different word choices (“transsexual” and “perceived gender”) that reinforced each other, it seems more likely than not that they reflected the mindset of the author, but not having looked further for their other writings I was not sure. That’s why I said " transphobic language" and not “transphobic author”.

    • Redkey@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but in the context of the article it was legitimately necessary to address the topic somehow; it’s not like it was written apropos of nothing as a commentary on transsexuality. As a CIS person, I also have a “percieved gender” with which I identify.

      Would “post-transition gender” be a more sensitive term, or less?

      • Skydancer@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        More, but there’s an even simpler solution. In the context, the author is distinguishing between “sex assigned at birth” and “perceived gender.” The equivocating word " perceived" could simply be dropped with no loss of clarity.