Yeah, I was expecting some hostility. I may of asserted myself hastily in my first post.

I am just critical of a phenomenon suddenly becoming the normative discourse, yet still being projected as a marginal discourse; it builds exclusivity, easily becomes a "brand," commodified, and, if you take care to look at contemporary sexuality, which has subdivided as if music genres, though toted as "identity," it shows the potential to mislead those into thinking they must pursue a new sex/gender, when the answer may be much less drastic than that. (People already are transitioning to cats. Yes.)

I didn't misgender anyone. There's a difference between gender and biological sex. I say male dominated because, unless these individuals have had reassignment surgery, they are still, technically, biologically defined as male. I think presenting oneself as "girl," or suggesting society has pushed this genderization onto oneself, when in possession of a penis and testes, co-opts the female perspective of being "genderized" as girls.

So, in my mind, there are male women, or female men, or whatever. It's all great. But each one has their own set of struggles, where bands like G.L.O.S.S. seem to claim a multitude of marginalized perspectives.

The problems encountered by women, females, are different from the problems encountered by transgenders, yet often these seem to be lumped together, interchangeable. This may be the problem I'm facing in understanding-- I don't contemplate how, when transitioned, the perspective becomes both static, yet remains ambiguous too.

If being a cat fulfills you, have at it. My concern is there may be some widespread buyers regret on that new set of genitals, or those paws.