Like were you “male socialized” as a middle-class neurotypical white guy or what? It just doesn’t provide a lot of useful context compared to how often it’s used as a thought-terminating cliche to dismiss trans people discussing gendered issues.
There’s a fine line between “everybody is unique, so no description is perfect” and “everyone is unique, so no description is possible.”
Of course, but when discussing patriarchy it’s more useful to just utilize intersectional frameworks and specify you grew up poor/black/closeted or openly gay along with AGAB, while when people say “male/female socialized”, it’s… too unhelpful to converse around.
Descriptions are already possible without resorting to defaultist phrases that, frankly, assume someone is white, middle-class, etc like I mentioned. Too many people are not those things, these aren’t outliers.
There’s a fine line between “everybody is unique, so no description is perfect” and “everyone is unique, so no description is possible.”
Of course, but when discussing patriarchy it’s more useful to just utilize intersectional frameworks and specify you grew up poor/black/closeted or openly gay along with AGAB, while when people say “male/female socialized”, it’s… too unhelpful to converse around. Descriptions are already possible without resorting to defaultist phrases that, frankly, assume someone is white, middle-class, etc like I mentioned. Too many people are not those things, these aren’t outliers.
Is it more useful? Because in this context obsessing over intersectionality just seems to be muddying the waters to the point of opacity.