• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Non-binary identities are valid

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thermal said:
You're asking a qualia question, which can't be objectively answered. Like most identity things, it's how you choose to think of yourself, not how anything actually is, or literally feels like.
Click to expand...
The category is defined entirely in terms of qualia.

Give me another similar identity question.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, I am asking you to accept that a trans man is a man when they ask you to, which you have already stated that you will. So I'm not clear why you are trying to go any deeper than that.
Click to expand...
Earlier you suggested that I go back to defining myself as a man entirely on the basis of being biologically male. Are you denying you said that? Or did I misunderstand you?

I said: 'When I say "I am a man" I mean only that I am biologically male.'

In your replay you said: 'Try it on for size and if you don't like it, go back to identifying in agreement with your genitals.'

So you meant go back to the definition I used earlier, ie that I mean only that I am biologically male, yes?

If I did that then I would be defining myself in terms of what is usually described as a transphobic definition of a man.

So we need to confirm - did you suggest that or not?

And you are asking me to accept a trans man using a definition of "man" that I have not even an inkling of what it means, yes?
 
Belz... said:
Are you saying that a barren wife being a legal reason for marriage annulment somehow means that the wife is not a woman? Where the hell do you get from one to the other?
Click to expand...

I'm saying there was a time when women who couldn't have children were considered to not be women at all, since childbearing was indeed considered the definitional function of a woman.
Case in point: during childbirth, the default was to prioritize the life of the child over that of the mother.


The resistance against same-sex marriage is an offshoot of this, since traditionally, the role of the family is to have children, which means that any marriage without children is not a "right" marriage.

We have managed overcome most of this, but even the most woke take on binary/non-binary today will probably not be the way we see gender in 20 years or so.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I linked earlier to an article arguing why misgendering can be considered violence.
Click to expand...

Differences of opinion are not violence. Let's stop massacring words, ok?

I'm asking YOU for specific examples. If you can't find one, that's fine, but just admit that you have no idea how that would work in real life, and retract your argument.

And this isn't a thread about theism.
Click to expand...

So I can't even use theism as a parallel or an example? Since when are you the topic police?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'm saying there was a time when women who couldn't have children were considered to not be women at all, since childbearing was indeed considered the definitional function of a woman.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Provide citations that demonstrate that such women were not considered women.

Case in point: during childbirth, the default was to prioritize the life of the child over that of the mother.
Click to expand...

That's not a "case in point". This is yet another non sequitur. Prioritising the child has NOTHING to do with whether you consider the mother a woman.

You keep making arguments and presenting examples that have little or nothing to do with your claim. You don't seem to be understanding your own claims.

The resistance against same-sex marriage is an offshoot of this, since traditionally, the role of the family is to have children, which means that any marriage without children is not a "right" marriage.
Click to expand...

See? You're still confusing gender roles with genders!
 
zooterkin said:
Yes, I know, that’s why I said I was confused for a minute, until I realised there were two politicians with the same name (one in England, one in Scotland). They both have beards, too.
Click to expand...

Well now, that is confusing; thanks for the clarification. :cool:
 
arthwollipot said:
I am asking you to accept that a trans man is a man when they ask you to
Click to expand...
To me, this is like asking that I accept that God is real when asked. I can't just toggle my beliefs on and off like that.

I can use their desired pronouns when asked. I can acknowledge and respect their declared gender role (as best I understand it), just like I can respect the practice of Christianity without believing in its tenets. Right? If I find myself in the company of Catholics during a religious ceremony or observance, I can clasp my hands and bow my head alongside them. I can even recite the words and sing the songs along with them, out of respect for their beliefs and a desire to not cause unnecessary trouble. But if they asked me to believe what they believe? There I have to draw the line.

I guess it would help if we even knew what "a trans man is man" actually means. What am I supposed to accept? They're allowed to wear pants instead of dresses? Okay, sure, but that's not really a gendered thing for me anyway.

Gendered pronouns? Makes sense, sure. Special pronouns? I think they're stupid, but whatever, I can show respect. Believing that special pronouns aren't stupid? Sorry, no can do. Best I can offer is that if you don't ask, I won't mention it. And if you do ask, I'll politely find some way to avoid telling you how I really feel.

What about sexual attraction? If I'm a lesbian and you're a pre-op trans man who looks like exactly my type of attractive woman, am I supposed to not be attracted to you, out of respect for your manhood? (If you're a pre-op trans woman, are straight dudes not supposed to be turned off by your penis?)

What about the trans man who checked into the hospital as a man, and then had a negative health outcome because the medical staff followed the gender indicated on the chart and didn't realize they were actually treating a problem of female biology?

(What about trans women competing in women's sports? Does accepting that a trans woman is a woman extend that far?)

When you ask me to accept that a trans man is a man, what exactly are you asking me to accept?
 
Belz... said:
In fact, let's make Cat our official dictionary.



Sorry, what are you talking about here? The definition of gender?
Click to expand...

How do you unpack something that’s fundamentally incoherent like non-binary is what I mean.
 
MisAndreG said:
How do you unpack something that’s fundamentally incoherent like non-binary is what I mean.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything incoherent about deliberately presenting oneself as androgyneWP, though it seems fairly difficult to pull off successfully.
 
Belz... said:
Undesirable or un-feminine, certaintly, but I've not seen them ever called anything else than "woman".

Do you have specific examples to support Zaganza's point?
Click to expand...

I understand Zaganza's point to be about how barren women are treated in their society, in terms of the respect and privilege their society accords to women; not about what they're actually called.

And I do have examples of of that:

In addition, many societies only tend to value a woman if she is able to produce at least one child, and a marriage can be considered a failure when the couple cannot conceive.[58]

[...]

Wealth is sometimes measured by the number of children a woman has, as well as inheritance of property.[59][62] Children can influence financial security in many ways. In Nigeria and Cameroon, land claims are decided by the number of children. Also, in some Sub-Saharan countries women may be denied inheritance if she did not bear any children [62] In some African and Asian countries a husband can deprive his infertile wife of food, shelter and other basic necessities like clothing.[62] In Cameroon, a woman may lose access to land from her husband and left on her own in old age.[59]

In many cases, a woman who cannot bear children is excluded from social and cultural events including traditional ceremonies. This stigmatization is seen in Mozambique and Nigeria where infertile women have been treated as outcasts to society.[59] This is a humiliating practice which devalues infertile women in society.[63][64]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infertility#Social_stigma​

Would you agree that if the citations bear out these claims, these are specific examples that support Zaganza's point?

The way I'd put it, they're not treated as "real" women because they can't conceive.

Similar to how American slave owners didn't call their male slaves anything other than men, but also didn't recognize them as having the same rights and privileges as "real" men in society.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Neither male nor female. This might help.
Click to expand...

Heh: "Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary), or genderqueer, is a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine*."

So, definitely not "neither male nor female". But rather, "varying degrees of gender role expression".

What does "exclusively masculine or feminine" even mean in modern western culture?

Is a woman who wears pants nonbinary? Is a man who wears makeup genderqueer? Is there any modern social role in the western world that is exclusively masculine or feminine? I can think of a few that are exclusively male or female, but those are down to strict biological necessity. Sperm donor, for example. Surrogate mother. Wet nurse? Or has science now given us men who can lactate healthful milk? I dunno.

At first glance, your answers seem simple and straightforward, but your terminology actually leaves us with a lot of baggage to unpack. Complicated, confusing, and in some cases apparently intractable baggage.

Anyway, in modern western society, there aren't many (if any) gender identifiers that are exclusively masculine or feminine. We're all genderqueer now. Which is good news for tomboys, but bad news for gender dysphorics. We may be approaching a point of historic irony, where the only people who are exclusively masculine or feminine in their gender identity are the fully transitioned transsexuals.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
I linked earlier to an article arguing why misgendering can be considered violence. And this isn't a thread about theism.
Click to expand...

If everything is violence, nothing is violence. And this is a thread about belief and acceptance of belief. How we treat the beliefs of theists can give us insights and tools for how we treat the beliefs of transgenders.
 
MisAndreG said:
How do you unpack something that’s fundamentally incoherent like non-binary is what I mean.
Click to expand...

Well don't ask me. I've been trying to understand that one for a few years now.

But then, if you buy into the idea that gender is whatever you feel like at any moment, the concept of non-binary flows directly from that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom