>>3283
When using the very simplified definition of the rejection of something typically 'meaningful', you might have a point depending on the definition of gender. But overall, no. They are not gender nihilists, and a vast majority of these people actually put significantly more meaning on gender than so-called cis people would.
This is obvious for people who feel gender-related body dysphoria (whether they identify as trans or not) and makes perfect sense. They are basically forced to consider the notion of gender stronger than people without dysphoria do, making them seem more focused on the topic and bestowing it with a lot more significance than it perhaps deserves. I'm not going to criticise them for that.
It's less obvious for all the rest - a majority, to be sure - who literally only talk about 'identification' as though they can change the meaning of a descriptive word to a normative one just like that. Gender, to them, is a construct because they mostly only mean attributes that are linked to biological sex (and are indeed, more often than not, arbitrary). But instead of making that distinction clear or at least rejecting outdated or inapplicable stereotypes, these people make the ludicrous leap of denying the descriptive aspect of gender entirely. Now, 'man' and 'woman' are terms to be used so loosely that they mean basically nothing. Not because they dismiss the importance of gender (as an asexual I would feel a lot more sympathetic to that notion, tbh) but precicely because they deem it so important that the descriptive 'restrictions' need to go in order to allow for personal comfort when self-labelling. It is a ludicrous thought-process that actually does more harm than good on almost any front, including the plights of dysphoric people.
Basically, if they were "gender nihilists", they would actually make more sense.