Also, just because people from two very different camps agree, or seem to, doesn't mean they're both right: they might share one (flawed) axiom that leads them both to the same position. (Flawed axioms that seem possibly relevant here are gender essentialism, and one that looks something like "sex without romantic love is not only less valuable but degrading, and you can't love more than one person that way." The conservative Christian might shape that into "God doesn't want you to do this" and the radical feminist say that "you're buying into the patriarchy," but they're both going to tell us that we can't love more than one person, and have no right to try.)
That "future point of bonding" is an "apt" cap to the incident only in the sense that it makes a nicely pointed story, not that it's a suitable outcome or a justifiable answer. There are probably people out there who have never experienced gender-based exclusion; it's possible that there are some who aren't cisgendered males; but the idea that the trans woman in question had been one, and that she or the world was better off because she'd suffered that way is nonsense that would be silly if not harmful.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-30 12:26 pm (UTC)That "future point of bonding" is an "apt" cap to the incident only in the sense that it makes a nicely pointed story, not that it's a suitable outcome or a justifiable answer. There are probably people out there who have never experienced gender-based exclusion; it's possible that there are some who aren't cisgendered males; but the idea that the trans woman in question had been one, and that she or the world was better off because she'd suffered that way is nonsense that would be silly if not harmful.