(i ripped this off wikipedia real fast so sorry if it's lib)
In October 1776, the Public Universal Friend contracted an epidemic disease and was bedridden and near death with a high fever. Their family summoned a doctor from Attleboro, six miles away, and neighbors kept up a death-watch at night. The fever broke after several days. The Friend later reported that [deadname redacted] had died, receiving revelations from God through two archangels who proclaimed there was "Room, Room, Room, in the many Mansions of eternal glory for Thee and for everyone". The Friend further said that [deadname redacted]'s soul had ascended to heaven and the body had been reanimated with a new spirit charged by God with preaching his word, that of the "Publick Universal Friend", describing that name in the words of Isaiah 62:2 as "a new name which the mouth of the Lord hath named".
From that time on, the Friend refused to answer to their deadname, ignoring or chastising those who insisted on using it. When visitors asked if it was the name of the person they were addressing, the Friend simply quoted Luke 23:3 ("thou sayest it").โ Identifying as neither male nor female, the Friend asked not to be referred to with gendered pronouns. Followers respected these wishes; they referred only to "the Public Universal Friend" or short forms such as "the Friend" or "P.U.F.", and many avoided gender-specific pronouns even in private diaries. When someone asked if the Friend was male or female, the preacher replied "I am that I am", saying the same thing to a man who criticized the Friend's manner of dress (adding, in the latter case, "there is nothing indecent or improper in my dress or appearance; I am not accountable to mortals").
editorial note: I think this is a very cool story and I really love hearing it. We've been around forever and we've been doing variations of this forever. It's really beautiful
Join our public Matrix server! https://matrix.to/#/#tracha:chapo.chat
As a reminder, be sure to properly give content warnings and put sensitive subjects behind proper spoiler tags. It's for the mental health of not just your comrades, but yourself as well.
Here is a screenshot of where to find the spoiler button.
This is truly the question
presentation, mainly, I would think.
i think in like a utopian vision individual presentation/expression would basically not be entangled with gender at all, gender having been transcended and essentially discarded on a collective level. maybe there would be echoes of gendered presentations from today's time, but they would hopefully be seen merely as a style or fashion that anyone could easily adopt without second thought or judgement.
@Tomboymoder@hexbear.net I guess it's this?
why is presentation gendered, but not tits?
Everyone presents some kind of gender, or maybe lack thereof. Quick, do no men have breasts?
is it not possible for a man and a woman to have the same "presentation"?
You didn't answer my question, but at that point one of these two people is presenting a gender outside of the binary, or at least on the other end from what their gender is.
why?
What do you mean, "why?" If a cisgender man and a cisgender woman have the same gender presentation, one of them has done something not very binary gendered, or at the very least outside of their assigned gender.
If you want to make the argument that physical traits are inherently gendered, do it straightforwardly instead of talking around me or disengage.
how the fuck is clothing inherently gendered, but not fucking sexual characteristics??
If you really wanna get into it in good faith, presentational aspects, clothes and such, only have the genders they're given which is societally constructed. There's nothing innately "female" about ankle length skirts but they're seen as a feminine thing in the west right now. You either take that into account or decide to flout it deliberately.
Any human of any gender can have any physical characteristic, ergo, no physical characteristic is gendered.
There is nothing innately "female" about breasts but they're seen as a feminine thing in the west right now. You either take that into account (by binding etc.) or decide to flout it deliberately.
I mean, I don't think I disagree really. Breasts being seen as feminine is wrong and terrible and a cisnormative notion, so we should be getting rid of it.
so then what IS "gender expression" in a world where clothes and characteristics have no gender?
That's sort of what I'm asking, presumably something much cooler and without baggage. I guess you could say that in our world, gender expression exists in relation to the gender binary, whether it plays within it or breaks it. If you think physical traits and characteristics have innate gender you have work to do.
Hit me up when we get clothes and everything else degendered, though I'm not entirely certain we should degender clothes necessarily. I don't know if it's as harmful as saying that breasts are female for instance.
just posting to remind to keep things civil in this thread