An intersex person is typically assigned a gender at birth, but so is everyone else. Being intersex just means you aren’t biologically male or female (though I think this might also include people who have sex chromosomes that develop as though they were the other binary sex, but I’m not an expert). Most intersex people don’t typically know they are intersex, and thus they would count as cisgender so long as they identify as the gender they were assigned at birth and transgender if they do not. Thus, if someone had, say XY chromosomes, but was assigned female at birth, they would probably be cis if they identified as female.

However, trans can be a bit of a self-identifying label, and thus someone in that situation might just as well consider themselves trans. There’s a lot of different definitions for trans. Many non-binary people would consider themselves trans since they don’t identify as their assigned gender at birth.

Long story short, gender is complicated. Sex doesn’t change (put a couple asterisks here), but gender is super flexible (also asterisks here.)

By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should’ve done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!

Or was civil rights too fast as well?

Same argument that was made for gay people sharing locker rooms, bigots never get new material. If you’re not comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone, then, ya know, you don’t have to use it.

Why is it queer people have to suffer for bigotry? Why not just be less of a bigot?

Eh, fair enough. I was a bit rude there, but the intent is that while I agree this isn’t a super complex piece of art, I don’t think it needs to be. I would even argue that by making the message as simple as possible, it does what it sets out to do quite well, which is to physically represent the emotions of the author. Maybe they don’t match yours, but that is the subjectivity of it. I know that I would be quite dismissive of other webcomics, but I would likely dismiss it for the subject matter, and not the quality. Webcomics tend to be a fairly simple medium, so I let a lot of things pass for it.

I think you actually don’t like the message of the comic, because if you didn’t like it or thought it was lazy, you would probably move on.

For me, this comic represents my lived experience. I have had people in my life literally say “It’s just politics” and call trans people sexually deviant pedophiles at the same time. And if you haven’t had that happen to you, good for you. But I like the comic because it is simple, short, and pretty good at conveying that feeling.

Sorry if that feels lazy to you, art is subjective, but I think the message of this is pretty fucking obvious because of its simplicity.

where does one determine where to draw the line?

Short answer: By what the experts say, and they say transgender people should be treated as the gender they identify as. Period.

Long answer: A lot of PhDs did a fuckload of research over a century plus and showed that, yeah, gender is super fucking complicated and doesn’t map out to male/female based on your genitals at birth (let alone for the reason that, you know, maybe you might be born with a penis AND a vagina or ovaries AND testes or female chromosomes AND male genetalia, etc.), and if people get some simple gender affirmation, they live better and happier lives, and that applies to cisgender people, as well.

Easy answer: You can claim to be fucking anything you want. Who actually gives a shit? Let people be themselves if it don’t hurt anyone. What’s the problem with being a transgirl or a transboy? Why do we even have multiple bathrooms? That just seems to punish all sorts of people for no reason.

If you WANT to say transracial or transspecies or transnational is a thing, by all means do some research and prove it through studies and peer review. Until then, it is unlikely to be recognized the same way that transgender has because it has a lot of supporting evidence.

Idk, I think it’s VERY SPECIFICALLY about trans rights, but I just can put my finger on why…

Violence in exchange for healthcare is celebrated by a lot of people.

I heard that’s what they did for your mom’s house.

Nobody has ever yelled at me for eating or posting a picture of my American Midwest grocery store sushi, get the fuck outta here.

The irony here is that the term cultural appropriation has been politically appropriated, the same way that many of these explorative racial theories are, like woke, like social justice, like critical race theory. They are taken from their academic settings and eventually used to suppress actual concerns raised by denegrating it and reducing it to something that is both laughable and fundamentally not what it is.

Unlike the current system, where healthcare becomes completely out of reach of normal people.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Endorsements have been a thing throughout a lot of human history because we are very social beings. It may sound silly, but some people literally care more what an entertainer says instead of any or all politicians or political experts, and will vote because of it.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.

You keep going in circles. Whose safety? The fact that it is related to the bottom line DIRECTLY contradicts yourself, that safety is only a concern as related to the money, because the money is the only concern, and that money flows to the owner.

You can call my acumen bad, but I’m just using historically very successful businesses and their complete and utter neglect for worker, consumer, and environmental safety.

You did.

I tend to disagree with this, not that it’s entirely incorrect, but I think quality can’t be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor

Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn’t factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn’t factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren’t paid more than an average software developer because it’s not meritocratic for workers.

Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it’s easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?

Nepotism doesn’t factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is “No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it.”

Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.

Who would work for Jeff’s sugar factory if Jeff’s sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds

If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn’t simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn’t always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?