That really feels like it's the same as "We can't get gay people get married....WHAT IF PEOPLE WANT TO MARRY THEIR DOGS?!??!"
I don't know. Personally, I think the image in King's post touches on a point that is somewhat valid. Granted, the people making that point are often unnecessarily mean-spirited about it, but the point itself is interesting to me.
I've actually had trouble wrapping my head around the concept of gender identity. What exactly does it mean to identify as a gender? I've done quite a bit of reading online trying to find an answer to that question, and I've never really found an explanation I could get behind.
Quoting Wikipedia - not a great source, I know, but just for the sake of discussion: "The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).
" That's from the article on 'Sex and gender distinction.' The bolded portion outlines two ways of looking at gender.
The first is essentially gender roles - social roles based on sex. That's a fairly reasonable explanation. However, I feel like that just perpetuates the idea of traditional gender stereotypes, an idea which I can't say I'm all that fond of.
Alternatively, Wikipedia suggests that gender might also refer to... personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness. Which seems fairly useless as a definition, seeing as it literally uses the word it is attempting to define. Now, again, to be fair, this is a Wikipedia article I'm quoting. It's not exactly an ironclad source. But at the very least, it represents a public perception of the gender issue. And I think it's pretty easy to see how that perception might lead to questions like the ones posed in King's picture. It's not a slippery slope argument - it's a question about the logic behind this 'identification'. After all, if you try to define any other identification system this way, it can get downright ridiculous.
"Citizenship can refer to personal identification of one's own citizenship based on internal awareness." No, citizenship refers to the status of a person recognized by custom or law as being a member of a country. "Shape can refer to personal identification of one's own shape based on internal awareness." No, shape refers to an object's physical form, external boundary, outline, or surface. "Weight can refer to personal identification of one's own weight based on internal awareness." No, weight refers to the force exerted on an object or person by gravity. "Gender can refer to personal identification of one's own gender based on internal awareness." No, gender refers to...
... what, exactly?
And I'm honestly asking. I'm not just trying to play devil's advocate or be obnoxious. I sincerely struggle with modern gender issues, because everything seems to be defined in very vague and often arbitrary ways. If anyone can provide me with clarity or insight, I genuinely welcome it.