Reddit reviews The Forest and the Trees: Sociology as Life, Practice, and Promise 3rd Ed.

> pronouns don’t refer to biological sex

Sure they do. For instance, we refer to our biologically male pets as "he," and our female pets as "she."

>they’ve existed since hundreds of years before chromosomes were discovered

What's the relevance of this? Yes, the oppressive social construct of gender has been widespread in large-scale societies since sex-based divisions of labor were formally institutionalized, well before modern science. So what? This does not mean we don't also sometimes use pronouns to refer to organisms' biological sex, or that we can't abandon the use of gendered terms. This smacks of traditionalist, reactionary claptrap.

>transphobes have to do some insane mental gymnastics to justify their bigotry!

Bigotry is intolerance. There is no intolerance of trans folk involved in the refusal to reproduce gender via the adoption of gendered nomenclature. It's patently absurd to think that avoidance of oppressive (gendered) language is oppressive. Such an attitude is reminiscent of white racists who claim that those who point out actual, structural racism are the real racists. Again, trans ideology, and the gaslighting tactics its adherents resort to, is thoroughly conservative.
_
>i don’t think gender is oppressive for everyone, i feel very much at home in my femininity and i don’t want that taken away, but if you feel like your gender is harming you, then just ask me to use gender neutral pronouns for you.

First, gender isn't merely a personal thing; rather, it is characteristically interpersonal. Remember, gender is a social construct. Just like racists (and pretty much all other anti-egalitarians, for that mater), you're committed to a traditionally individualist mindset when it comes to understanding social issues. Observes sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva in Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America:

>The frame of abstract liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g., “equal opportunity,” the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters. (p. 56, italics in original, bold added)

Of course, traditional Western individualism is a conservative ideology. It functions to preserve social inequalities. Further, it is simply unscientific. Social scientists have long known that individualistic accounts of human society and behavior are bogus. As the late sociologist Allan G. Johnson would put it, such accounts miss the forest for the trees.

Second, though you may not feel personally oppressed by gender, this doesn't mean that others don't. This is what is called anecdotal evidence; you cannot make broad generalizations based on singular, personal accounts. Gender is, in fact, an oppressive social construct because it engenders social inequality and instills conformity; this, of course, results in much distress for those who do not wish to conform, via social exclusion that can even culminate in violence. Your callous disregard here for others is similar to that of selfish "I got mine" American libertarians. Again, you, and the ideology you represent, are clearly conservative.

Third, you are erroneously conflating the social construct of gender with traditionally gendered (masculine VS feminine) social presentations. I'm not suggesting that you should have your right to present yourself in a feminine manner taken away. In fact, freedom to express oneself as one sees fit is the point of gender critical efforts! The issue here is that these social presentations are formally instituted; as I explained above, this is problematic for many reasons.

Finally, as I've been saying, I'd prefer it if you refrained from the usage of gendered terms altogether. Instead of using pronouns such as "he/she" and "his/hers" to refer to people's genders, use them in reference to their biological sex. Sex-neutral terms such as "they" are fine as well.
__
>dude i fuckin wish we lived in a society where i was considered a conservative!

Hmm? Why is that, haha?

Whether society considers you conservative is not the point. For instance, mainstream American society regards liberals as leftists, even though they are not actually leftist. Society, of course, can be wrong. Since you advocate the usage of terms to refer to gender, you are, in fact, conservative, as this practice functions to preserve rather than eliminate this oppressive, anti-egalitarian social construct. Whether society sees you as conservative is irrelevant.

>no one can agree on what defines sex, not even scientists

While the particulars and nuances of biological sex are still a matter of scientific debate, researchers agree on general properties of biological sex. For example, organisms of a particular sex contain only same-sex intranuclear genetic material (XX or XY), can only produce same-sex gametes, and can only reproduce with conspecifics of the opposite sex. While there are some exceptions (e.g., children and eunuchs, who are unable to produce gametes), when it comes to normal development these properties are usually present.

Unlike biological sex, gender has no particular material substrate. It is, through and through, purely a social construct. It is not comparable to biological sex, which is a natural phenomenon that transcends human culture.