Here's the thing about... wrote:
Apologies for the perceived pretension in my tone--if you would like, feel free to reread my post and simply close your eyes at the mention of that particular philosopher.
As for your note about a color spectrum, it's not my idea, but the Butlers and those who are the intellectual vanguard of this movement. If you change something from blue to red, yes, that counts as a "transition" but the point of the "spectrum" image is not that something is EITHER blue OR red, but that there are seas of greens, purples, indigos, in between, and who knows where we all land on it (or even what is the authoritative voice that decides when someone has authentically "landed" on his/her/their place on the spectrum. Is it the person's inner, ineffable feeling? Is it the parents? The delivery nurse in the hospital room? The priest? Who knows?) For a person "transitioning," then the binary suddenly matters greatly.
The point is that there is one facet of the movement that demands that trans people be taken as a separate, distinct legal class, and another part of the movement that maintains that everyone is a potential "trans" person, so no such legal class can exist.
What if the two classes are those who believe in the gender binary and those who don't? Then the trans people, in the 2nd class, are being discriminated against by the people in the 1st class, who won't let them participate in [whatever]. The classes are based on beliefs and attitudes, not on biological factors, so the alleged spectrum doesn't conflict with their being two classes.


