• 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.
Roboramma said:
I mostly agree with you on this.

However, I don't think that the feelings, minds, and internal states of others are completely opaque, as your argument makes them out to be. How can one know what it feels like to be female? By talking to people known to be female. If they all describe their state of womanhood in the same way, and that sounds very similar to one's own state, that could at least start to lead one to believe that they are experiencing a similar internal state.

I expect that many trans women have a less direct pathway to that, but something along those lines: interacting with our culture, yes talking and interacting with women, but also reading books which portray their internal states, watching movies, etc. Those can inform an intuitive idea of what it means to be a woman, and that can be compared to one's internal state.

Of course those social cues probably align to what we usually call gender stereotypes. How close the model formed actually maps to the internal feelings of women (which I suspect vary widely) is hard to say.

I'm also not sure if arthwollipot, or anyone else sharing his views, would endorse this view of coming to an understanding of the "feeling of femininity", but I do think it has to be addressed by your argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't necessarily think such feelings are completely opaque. I do, however, think they're opaque enough, and distinct enough from the opposite gender's feelings, that they can't be appealed to for gender identity.

Men can have empathy for women, and vice versa. But I don't think a man born and raised can plausibly claim to know what it's like, as their own core identity, to feel like a woman born and raised. Everything from the physical experiences of girlhood and womanhood, to the accumulated weight of all of society's gendered social interactions over the years, just isn't there.

Consider BIID. Someone could talk to paraplegics, or double amputees, and study their experiences, and embrace a sincere empathy for their struggles. They could come away from those conversations saying, "they all describe what I feel about my two healthy legs. Clearly I'm one of them, in my heart. Clearly I am entitled to have my legs removed by an ethical surgeon. And clearly no ethical surgeon would question my decision. Because it's not really a decision. It's my lived identity, validated by the corroborating accounts of others without legs."

And if they did that, it would be blatantly offensive to those who really do have the condition this person aspires to.
 
theprestige said:
I'm not sure if you're missing my point, avoiding it, or actually agreeing with it.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly a bit of all three :D. As TragicMonkey has been pointing out, these aren't questions with precise answers.

theprestige said:
My point is that I don't think it's possible for someone to know what it feels like to be the opposite sex, and that an appeal to such feelings is not a valid basis for concluding one is in fact the opposite sex. Thinking you're a trans woman just means you have feelings of discomfort or distress about your manhood. It doesn't mean you're a woman, or a different kind of woman, or a woman for purposes of demography, affirmative action, or sex segregation. Gender dysphoria is more akin to body identity integrity disorder than it is to race or sexual preference. In a nutshell, the trans claim, "I know I'm a woman" is bogus. Just as bogus as the BIID claim, "I know I don't really have a right leg."
Click to expand...
This isn't what my trans and nonbinary friends tell me. They say things like "I know I'm female because before my transition I lived all my life as male and it always just felt wrong. After my transition that feeling is gone and I feel more genuinely like myself."

I have never had that feeling. I know what it's like to be me, and the identity of me as male is very comfortable. I'm not going to be able to explain any more clearly, because it is not a very quantifiable thing.
 
Roboramma said:
What if I'm sure I know the correct pronouns, but you disagree with me. You're sure that I should say "she" but I'm sure I should say "he". Between you and me that hasn't been settled at all.
Click to expand...
My "correct" pronouns are the ones that I have asked you to use. I literally can't be wrong about that, any more than I can be wrong about what my name is.

Roboramma said:
So how can you claim it's settled? You've decided you're right, and you are going to engage in the discussion as though that were the case, rather than listening to the other side?

ETA We both think we have an objective way of determining the answer: you say "the person just told me their preferred pronouns! How can it be any more settled than that?!" I say "The person just told me their sex!" or perhaps "I know," (through some other means) "the person's sex! How could it be any more clear than that?!" Given that our discussion isn't about whether or not sex/preference has been made clear, but rather which of these determines which is the "correct" pronoun to use, your simple statement that it's been settled is in fact just trying to sweep that disagreement under the rug.
Click to expand...
There's no disagreement if you accept that people know which pronouns they want people to use.

If someone has changed their name by deed poll or marriage, or just by saying "I'm John now, not Johnny", do you quibble with them over what name to use? No. You don't. You get used to using their new name. You make some mistakes, correct yourself, and over time you get more and more used to it.

Same thing.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
My "correct" pronouns are the ones that I have asked you to use. I literally can't be wrong about that, any more than I can be wrong about what my name is.
Click to expand...

It's true that the pronoun that you want me to use is by definition the pronoun that you want me to use.

There is disagreement about whether or not the correct pronoun to use is defined by what you want rather than by your sex.

Which answer is correct seems to me to be socially constructed (:p). As a part of language, what pronouns are references to is determined mainly by how people use them. I know how I've always used them (and that wasn't as a marker for an internal state), but I also understand that that usage is changing, at least in some communities of people. There are certainly contexts in which I'll follow the same usage convention as you use.

But it's not correct by definition, and there's certainly a conversation to be had here.

There's no disagreement if you accept that people know which pronouns they want people to use.
Click to expand...
I accept that they know which pronouns people want them to use. I don't accept that their desire defines correct usage.

If someone has changed their name by deed poll or marriage, or just by saying "I'm John now, not Johnny", do you quibble with them over what name to use? No. You don't. You get used to using their new name. You make some mistakes, correct yourself, and over time you get more and more used to it.

Same thing.
Click to expand...

Probably. But I disagree that pronouns are like names in this sense. I think they are more analogous. to titles. They refer to a person, but based on some particular quality of that person, not just as a marker for that person. If a friend of mine asked me to start calling him Doctor without having achieved that qualification, I probably wouldn't do so.

So, once again, our disagreement isn't about whether or not people know which pronouns they want to be referred to by. Our disagreement is about what pronouns are actually referring to. You can't resolve that disagreement by fiat, though there are other arguments that may be convincing.
 
arthwollipot said:
There's no disagreement if you accept that people know which pronouns they want people to use.
Click to expand...

So here's how I see the disagreement over pronouns:

You want me to use certain pronouns as an accommodation for your condition. Of course. Say no more. In fact, let's not even put you in the position of having to discuss your personal medical details. Just say...

... You want me to use certain pronouns out of courtesy, without needing any explanation because quite frankly you don't owe me any explanation? Absolutely. No question there. It'll be my pleasure.

But.

You want me to use certain pronouns out of agreement with and acceptance of your counterfactual biological claims? Boop to that. Push on that, try to criminalize dissent from that, and I lose even the goodwill and respect in the second case.
 
theprestige said:
So here's how I see the disagreement over pronouns:

You want me to use certain pronouns as an accommodation for your condition. Of course. Say no more. In fact, let's not even put you in the position of having to discuss your personal medical details. Just say...

... You want me to use certain pronouns out of courtesy, without needing any explanation because quite frankly you don't owe me any explanation? Absolutely. No question there. It'll be my pleasure.
Click to expand...
Perfect. That's all I'm saying.

theprestige said:
But.

You want me to use certain pronouns out of agreement with and acceptance of your counterfactual biological claims? Boop to that. Push on that, try to criminalize dissent from that, and I lose even the goodwill and respect in the second case.
Click to expand...
Actually there's one more thing I'm saying: that my personal biological situation - by which we both mean what kind of genitals I possess - are nobody else's business so why do you keep on bring it up.

Seriously. Why do people care what genitals someone possesses? Once again, unless you are engaging in a sexual relationship with someone, it's none of your business. Use the pronouns. Use the name. Anything else is superfluous, irrelevant and potentially offensive.
 
Roboramma said:
It's true that the pronoun that you want me to use is by definition the pronoun that you want me to use.

There is disagreement about whether or not the correct pronoun to use is defined by what you want rather than by your sex.
Click to expand...
There's only disagreement because some people want there to be a "correct" pronoun. There is no "correct" pronoun, there is only the pronoun that somebody wants you to use.

Roboramma said:
Probably. But I disagree that pronouns are like names in this sense. I think they are more analogous. to titles. They refer to a person, but based on some particular quality of that person, not just as a marker for that person. If a friend of mine asked me to start calling him Doctor without having achieved that qualification, I probably wouldn't do so.
Click to expand...
So let's poke this analogy further. Standard titles (which are inherently sexist, by the way) hold that you call someone Miss if they are unmarried and Mrs if they are married. If a Miss gets married, you now refer to them as Mrs. And (in the standard heteronormative patriarchal paradigm) she will frequently change her surname. There's no question about which title to use. Except that now she wants you to call her Ms. as she does not feel that whether she is married or not is relevant. And you do so. You don't quibble over what Ms refers to. You just use it because she asked you to.

ETA: And there were people who objected to Ms. too. They seem at best quaint and old-fashioned now.
 
Belz... said:
I agree with you. But some are really trying to make it happen. And the politicians are responding to that because as usual they have no way of knowing how popular an idea on the internet is, so they read the room based on how loudly people can shout; and ideologues, no matter their numbers, can shout really loud.
Click to expand...

And disagreeing with that does not logically require disagreeing with a different aspect of the issue.
 
Okay so now that we've moved the other stuff, what is left? (Other than the proposed abolition of sexed categories for awards, competitions, and leagues.)
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Okay so now that we've moved the other stuff, what is left? (Other than the proposed abolition of sexed categories for awards, competitions, and leagues.)
Click to expand...

What the discussion is really about and what a lot of people have to pretend it isn't.

Whether not internal "identities" that are not linked in any way, shape, or form to external criteria are in anyway meaningful.

Non-traditional gendered people and supporters bristle when we bring up stuff like "transabled" people (people with normally functioning bodies that still act as if they are disabled) or like Otherkin but... what's the difference?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Okay so now that we've moved the other stuff, what is left? (Other than the proposed abolition of sexed categories for awards, competitions, and leagues.)
Click to expand...

Non-binary IDs are valid. If you can pull off androgyny, go for it. But ultimately, gender ID is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter how neither-male-nor-female you identify yourself as, if you still register as male to others, that's your actual valid gender identity.

This is different from dress and behavior variations such as "tomboy" or "effeminate" (most of which are part of the binary ID system anyway).
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Non-binary IDs are valid. If you can pull off androgyny, go for it. But ultimately, gender ID is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter how neither-male-nor-female you identify yourself as, if you still register as male to others, that's your actual valid gender identity.

This is different from dress and behavior variations such as "tomboy" or "effeminate" (most of which are part of the binary ID system anyway).
Click to expand...

Right, if the idea is that gender is a socioculturally-defined construct, then how the society and culture views your gender is what your gender is. I understand wanting to change societal views on those definitions, but it's gonna take a lot of zeit for the geist to change. It's just too big of a leap for the current sociocultural climate, IMO, to: 1)change the language to include new pronouns 2)get wide acceptance of the idea that there exists something beyond the male/female binary and 3)rewrite the definition and concept of "gender" (which, itself, is pretty young in the history of English language) to mean "self-identified," rather than socioculturally-defined.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
ETA: And there were people who objected to Ms. too. They seem at best quaint and old-fashioned now.
Click to expand...

Quaint and old fashioned? You'd be surprised. The equivalent of the "Ms" title is all but extinct in Germany now, for example.

Seriously, I actually had to work on a sub-portal of a major corporation recently to remove any option to register yourself as a miss, if you had picked German as a language.

Funnily enough for the discussion at hand, the reason for getting rid of "Fräulein" is because it's neither male nor female gender, but neuter. You know, third gender :p

And it had spawned a rather annoying rule-of-thumb kinda saying that you're not really a woman until you're married.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Non-binary IDs are valid. If you can pull off androgyny, go for it. But ultimately, gender ID is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter how neither-male-nor-female you identify yourself as, if you still register as male to others, that's your actual valid gender identity.
Click to expand...

Actually, here I'll have to disagree. YOUR ID is just that, yours. Psychology is already BS enough without making a third of your psychology be in someone else's head :p

A more relevant question IMHO is whether what's in your head actually constitutes any obligation for anyone else.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Now you're starting to get it.
Click to expand...

Since you're responding to me saying that gender has nothing to do with internal feelings, are you therefore agreeing with me that it is rather based on objective characteristics?

I know what it feels like to be male. It feels like being me.
Click to expand...

Everyone feels like themselves, and I can't say whether I feel like you. Thereofore your statement here is ridiculous. There is no specific "male" feeling. Your gender is not determined by that.

That's right. Society has progressed past overt discrimination on the basis of handedness. That doesn't mean that there still aren't some issues.
Click to expand...

You're simply either not getting my point or deliberately avoiding it. My point is that minorities are disadvantaged BY DEFAULT. Even without discrimination or mistreatment, you are still disadvantaged. It doesn't mean that lefties are oppressed or that some new legislation is required.

As for trans people, as I've argued here I'm basically in agreement with activists on 95% of the issue. But since I disagree on the marginal cases I'm somehow treated like a bigot. You don't keep your allies when you act like that.
 
theprestige said:
Yeah, I don't necessarily think such feelings are completely opaque. I do, however, think they're opaque enough, and distinct enough from the opposite gender's feelings, that they can't be appealed to for gender identity.

Men can have empathy for women, and vice versa. But I don't think a man born and raised can plausibly claim to know what it's like, as their own core identity, to feel like a woman born and raised. Everything from the physical experiences of girlhood and womanhood, to the accumulated weight of all of society's gendered social interactions over the years, just isn't there.

<...>
Click to expand...

The above reminds me clearly of a moment from my freshman year in High School. A friend of mine suddenly got her period in the middle of class and wasn't at all prepared. I remember seeing her slinking out of class crying and trying desperately to cover up certain parts of her sweat pants. On one level I could relate to her embarrassment by thinking of all those unwanted, inappropriate erections I (and most other boys) was plagued with. But on another level I could never understand what that moment truly felt like to her because it was a uniquely female experience, just as she could never understand the crushing embarrassment of accidentally poking your platonic friend in the pelvis when she hugs you because that is a uniquely male experience.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And, as I keep saying, because I ACTUALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

I want to come to some kind of understanding.
Click to expand...

Baloney, you do.

In the other thread, I tried my damnedest to find some middle ground to build on and you literally refused to discuss it because would mean the possibility of understanding that genders can be, but aren't necessarily, sex-based.
JoeMorgue said:
Again I'm still waiting on you to define "gender" in anyway that isn't "A magical word that means the transperson is always correct."
Click to expand...

In order to understand something, you have to be willing to question your own assumptions. There is, at least, one assumption you are unwilling to question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom