Ah yes, we hear that word thrown about a lot by transjacktivists and their supporters.
They throw around terms like ‘gender congruity’ because it sounds oh-so-terribly official, and steeped in academic research and theory.
All they are trying to say is ‘[internal] gender aligned with one’s physical sex’, which is so simple (and bland sounding). Yep, let’s dress it up in posh terms and see if anyone buys it.
But, if they make it simple like that, it does sound a bit stupid doesn’t it? Aligning one’s ‘internal gender’ with one’s physical sex. If they try to sell it like that, most of the public are going to wise-up to the crackpot idea.
But wait! There’s moar! [ginsu knife reference :P]
Like I said in my previous post:
The twanz argument effectively goes along the lines of ‘sex’ being the mutable element, and ‘gender’ being the immutable element, because ‘sex’ (the sexual characteristics) should be the ones to change to accommodate ‘gender’ (being the airy-fairy so-called internal state).
Ah, so we are changing the outside thing, the hard thing to change, to conform to the inside thing, the easier thing to change.
Well, if I “feel like a panda inside” or ‘panda’ is my ‘internal identity’, then 99.9% of the world is going to think I am nuts to change my outside to match the inside. Panda congruity! Yep, sounds rather stoopid when I put it like that.
When one has to use ‘posh words’ in order to legitimise the theories and concepts, then chances are that the underlying theories and concepts are a big stinky poo.
Transjacktivists and their supporters like to play ‘hide the simple reality’ by dressing things up. Oh yeah, they like to dress things up, particularly when they have to have clothing congruity with their jendah.