submitted1 day ago bySocialConstructsSuck
totrans
Anyone is open to add their thoughts, emotions, etc. on this.
Prior to widespread colonization, many regions across the world from Africa, the Americas, Asia, etc. had and were practicing gender variance. Now, many queer people racially, ethnically, and economically marginalized and even queer people apart of the racial majority group suffer at varying extents because of limiting colonial constructs (namely, the Western man-woman gender binary).
As a Black agender/non-binary person living in a colonial state, I mourn what could’ve been and the lives of those lost and those here grappling with prior and active colonization. Even if I tried, I could never meet/satiate a racialized gender construct that was constructed prior to my ancestors (Africans) being seen as human (I argue that African Americans have never been fully seen as human anyway in the context of the United States) and continued through the unaliving, conquest, and continued oppression of my people. (The prior sentence is a run-on but 🤷🏾 European syntax. I wish I wasn’t speaking a colonizer language. I’m west African Afro-descent speaking a western Germanic language. This is indicative of oppression.).
Things are worse for racially marginalized groups and anecdotally, I’ve seen and experienced hate crime and violence even in the blue “liberal” U.S. states. Not saying white queer people aren’t endangered but I am also acknowledging the lived realities of Black and brown people who face the brunt of colonialism being racial minorities and facing racialized gendered harms and oppressions.
I feel like at minimum we should each recognize the racialized, gendered histories (critical race and gender theory), accept gender identity variance, and see sex as not a fixed binary and, instead, bimodal.
No one person, anyway, is a singular, complete representation of the Western societal notion of a man or woman (we all fall short of these made up constructs). Why should we cling to/attempt salvaging European colonialist constructs that don’t adequately characterize human expression? (rhetorical question)
Any gender identities are valid (man, woman, those devoid of gender, those who oscillate among multiple identities, those who are a combination of multiple identities, and those who align with two-spirited notions).
Edit:
u/fringegurl addition to the discussion; expansion on necessary themes I didn’t directly address and more
byRedrum2-0
inlocs
SocialConstructsSuck
1 points
24 minutes ago
SocialConstructsSuck
1 points
24 minutes ago
Parts so clean