Non-binary identities are valid

[Earthborn]

No, they assign sex based on observation

They assign gender, based on an observation of sex.

One could imagine a hypothetical society where gender is assigned based on an observation of a coin toss. In such a society there would be the genders of "heads" and "tails".

 

[Belz...]

They assign gender, based on an observation of sex.

Which sounds like both are the same.

You say they aren't. What's the distinction (in your words)?

 

[HansMustermann]

The two used to mean literally exactly the same thing. Now some people act as if they totally mean different things, and everyone should totally already know that. Thing is though, you can only change the meaning of a word if you actually get the majority to agree to the new meaning. Otherwise it's just jargon meaning for a group, and it doesn't make the old meaning wrong for anyone else.

It's like if I decided that "dinosaur" now means "thursday". Unless I can actually convince the rest of the people to use it that way, it still doesn't actually mean "thursday."

Short version: use it as meaning something different if you like, but kindly stop acting as if it's a failure of everyone else if they don't immediately adopt your redefined meaning.

 

[d4m10n]

Describe how it feels to have your blood type. Distinguish those feelings from how people with different blood types feel from having their blood types. Can you do it?

Interesting analogy. To extend it a bit, imagine a world in which 99.5% percent of people have either A+ or O+ blood types. What would it mean to say "I don't feel like either of those types." I'm drawing a blank here, in part because I doubt that the subjective experience of those groups really differs. I suppose we could layer on something akin to patriarchy, under which the A+ people keep the O+ in relatively lower status (even unpaid) jobs, and then it makes more sense since we've differentiated between the two groups based on social roles.

 

[Earthborn]

Meaningless semantics. Most people infer your sex from what they observe, and they are correct over 99% of the time.

Only because most people conform to the gender expectations associated with their sex.

Marvelous. Can you provide a useful definition of "gender", then? I've been looking for one.

The term "gender" in these discussions refers to the way it it used in feminist writing and cultural anthropology and refers to everything that is commonly associated with a distinction between men and women, but does not refer to any biological difference.

[everything to do with men and women] - [biological sex] = [gender]

It is necessarily a fluid concept, as it can differ from culture to culture, and has changed throughout history.

No you can't.

Pretty sure you can. Obviously a biological male cannot change into a biological female or vice versa, but if a person has one's primary sex characteristics radically altered, it seems weird to claim that nothing has changed.

 

[Earthborn]

Interesting analogy. To extend it a bit, imagine a world in which 99.5% percent of people have either A+ or O+ blood types. What would it mean to say "I don't feel like either of those types." I'm drawing a blank here, in part because I doubt that the subjective experience of those groups really differs

In Japan there is a common superstition that blood types are predictive of personality types. Suppose you have one bloodtype, but feel that the description of the associated personality does not fit you at all and you recognise yourself more in the description of another blood type.

 

[d4m10n]

The term "gender" in these discussions refers to the way it it used in feminist writing and cultural anthropology and refers to everything that is commonly associated with a distinction between men and women, but does not refer to any biological difference.

I think that's gender roles rather than gender identity. Not that I'm sure you can have the latter w/o the former.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

Only because most people conform to the gender expectations associated with their sex.

That sounds a bit circular. It's just as likely that the confirmity is due to the biology.

The term "gender" in these discussions refers to the way it it used in feminist writing and cultural anthropology and refers to everything that is commonly associated with a distinction between men and women, but does not refer to any biological difference.

[everything to do with men and women] - [biological sex] = [gender]

It is necessarily a fluid concept, as it can differ from culture to culture, and has changed throughout history.

Ok then I need to have a definition of what a man is and what a woman is. Is it simply defined by culture?

[/quote]Pretty sure you can. Obviously a biological male cannot change into a biological female or vice versa, but if a person has one's primary sex characteristics radically altered, it seems weird to claim that nothing has changed.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say nothing has changed. I said that the sex didn't change, and here you agree.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Pretty sure you can. Obviously a biological male cannot change into a biological female or vice versa, but if a person has one's primary sex characteristics radically altered, it seems weird to claim that nothing has changed.

Especially if a doctor looking at a newborn's genitals is to be considered a reliable way of determining their sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

[everything to do with men and women] - [biological sex] = [gender]

Doctors must have incredible magical powers, to be able to assign everything nonbiological to do with men and women to a person by merely writing down one word on a form. Absolutely incredible powers. Imagine what else we could harness these powers for.

 

[Belz...]

Especially if a doctor looking at a newborn's genitals is to be considered a reliable way of determining their sex.

Except that they're not the same thing. The genitals are a visible result of a number of things that makes one a male or female. Changing that one thing, for example, does not alter the rest.

 

[shuttlt]

Except that they're not the same thing. The genitals are a visible result of a number of things that makes one a male or female. Changing that one thing, for example, does not alter the rest.

In the same way that a tiger has a tail and stripes, but doesn't stop being a tiger just because you cut it's tail off and bleach it.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. "Male" is not a gender. You're thinking of 'man'.

If you replace "male" in my statement with "man", then the meaning is the same.

First of all, see above. You're still confusing sex and gender here. Second, saying that you are wrong doesn't "erase" your identity. Otherwise that would mean that telling theists that their god doesn't exist "erases" their faith.

Again, you're literally telling someone that their identity doesn't exist. It would be like telling an American that they're not American because America doesn't exist.

Damn, analogies are hard. That's probably not a great one.

Don't misrepresent my words. I said that gender means nothing.

And any word that has a definition based on each individual feeling is useless.

Therefore words like "Love" mean nothing and is useless, because it is based on someone's individual feeling.

Because without understanding what it typically feels like to be a (wo)man, you cannot say with any certainty that what you are experiencing is atypical.

Why would it have to be atypical to be valid?

 

[d4m10n]

Why would it have to be atypical to be valid?

I've no idea what "valid" should be taken to mean an here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[arthwollipot]

I've no idea what "valid" should be taken to mean an here.

That's fair, because I've no idea what "atypical" should be taken to mean.

 

[Belz...]

If you replace "male" in my statement with "man", then the meaning is the same.

Not if you think gender and sex are two different things. How about you clarify that?

Again, you're literally telling someone that their identity doesn't exist.

No, I'm not. Maybe figuratively, to you, but definitely not literally.

That's the part you don't understand: they don't suddenly lose their identity, anymore than theists lose their faith.

Therefore words like "Love" mean nothing and is useless

No, because the definition of "love" doesn't change from one individual to another.

Why would it have to be atypical to be valid?

Here you're making another mistake. You seem to be saying that the description and the value are inherently linked.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not if you think gender and sex are two different things. How about you clarify that?

Would it do any good?

No, I'm not. Maybe figuratively, to you, but definitely not literally.

That's the part you don't understand: they don't suddenly lose their identity, anymore than theists lose their faith.

How can I explain this?

Say that you are an American. I don't know if this is true, but this is just an example. I keep referring to you as a Canadian, and asking you how life is in Canada. You keep insisting that you are American, not Canadian, but I don't appear to be listening. When you press me on it, I tell you that America doesn't exist. How much of this would you take before you started to get annoyed?

Now multiply that by about a million times for nonbinary people.

No, because the definition of "love" doesn't change from one individual to another.

Yeah it does. Absolutely it does. The Greeks had four different words for it.

Here you're making another mistake. You seem to be saying that the description and the value are inherently linked.

I am saying that, and it is not a mistake. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can marginalise and dehumanise.

 

[d4m10n]

That's fair, because I've no idea what "atypical" should be taken to mean.

The usual dictionary definition will suffice here. Is that true of "valid" as well?

In order to say you're not X and not Y, you've got to have a decent idea of what it would actually mean to be either one. If men have a set of subjective experiences which are typical to men (but not women), and if women have a set of subjective experiences which are typical to women (but not men) then individuals who can rule (at least) most of those gendered experiences out could correctly (validly?) be said to subjectively experiencing life as neither men nor women.

 

[arthwollipot]

The usual dictionary definition will suffice here. Is that true of "valid" as well?

In order to say you're not X and not Y, you've got to have a decent idea of what it would actually mean to be either one. If men have a set of subjective experiences which are typical to men (but not women), and if women have a set of subjective experiences which are typical to women (but not men) then individuals who can rule (at least) most of those gendered experiences out could correctly be said to subjectively experiencing life as neither men nor women.

I can say that I'm not American and not Canadian, without knowing what it is like to be either. I can say this because I am Australian, and I know that is distinct from both.

A nonbinary person can say that they're not male and not female without knowing what it is like to be either. They can say this because they know what they feel like and they feel distinct from both.

Again the analogy to nationalities isn't that great.

 

[d4m10n]

I can say that I'm not American and not Canadian, without knowing what it is like to be either. I can say this because I am Australian, and I know that is distinct from both.

If you want to say gender identity is entirely a matter of subjective experience and self-reporting, analogizing to something which is a matter of intersubjective social consensus and/or documented legal status probably won't get you where you are hoping to go.

A nonbinary person can say that they're not male and not female without knowing what it is like to be either.

Are we talking about sex now instead of gender?

They can say this because they know what they feel like and they feel distinct from both.

How can anyone know what it's like to feel distinct from something they've never felt?