Non-binary identities are valid

[Olmstead]

Are you simply pointing out the obvious?
Multiple threads discussing this topic and its corollaries, thousands of posts, and I can not think of a single one that ever suggested otherwise.

Try telling that to child services. All I did was go buy a pink tutu with my son.

 

[LondonJohn]

One wonders how many dozens of pages of discussion are going to circle around that one simple point.

There's zero "discussion" to be had around this point: the gender identity pf a person is 100% to do with (and is solely to do with) the consideration of that person. It's in no way whatsoever defined with reference to the way in which others perceive the presentation of that person.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm good for about two more turns, and then I'll let it rest a bit. The only reason I'm even belaboring it now is a slightly different audience that may not have considered it before.

FWIW, LJ has previously rejected the premise that in the bedroom, it's entirely up to your partner to decide what gender you are, and whether they're attracted to it. I expect him to do the same again, bringing us around to the end of the loop. I'll probably hop off the merry-go-round at that point.

(This is one of the few contexts where the example of homosexuality is applicable to the question of gender identity.)

Oh so now we're goalpost-shifting to the bedroom again suddenly, huh. And - like you yourself pointed out - you've just amusingly disproved yourself: it's precisely as much "up to" somebody to "decide" what gender I am "and whether they're attracted to it" as it might be up to them to "decide" what sexuality I am "and whether they're attracted to it".

Look: if you choose to deny the existence of transgender identity = including non-binary transgender identity - then that's entirely up to you (and matters very closely related to bigotry). But what you're not allowed to do I'm afraid is choose to redefine the condition for your own ends.

 

[theprestige]

There's zero "discussion" to be had around this point: the gender identity pf a person is 100% to do with (and is solely to do with) the consideration of that person. It's in no way whatsoever defined with reference to the way in which others perceive the presentation of that person.

If I'm sexually attracted to women, and I perceive that you are a man, I'm not going to be sexually attracted to you. You telling me that you perceive yourself as a woman isn't going to change my (lack of) sexual attraction. It's 100% what's going on in my head that matters there.

 

[d4m10n]

Look: if you choose to deny the existence of...non-binary transgender identity - then that's entirely up to you...

Are there any parameters which might possibly delimit which gender identities actually exist? Seems to me that anyone can claim to be any "alternative gender" (e.g. https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Xenogender) and that's sort of all that matters.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you haven't figured out that humanity is complicated, you're over-simplifying.

This is why I called baloney. You aren't at all interested in understanding other perspectives or points of view.

And this, I'm afraid, is what lies at the very heart of this issue.

I am a heterosexual male, and I am entirely comfortable inhabiting the gender "man". But I am sufficiently* intelligent, perspicacious, understanding and reasonable to understand that not everyone is the same as I am.

So, for example, I entirely understand and respect that there are some males who - unlike me and my own internalised experience - are sexually attracted to other males (or who are sexually attracted sometimes to males and sometimes to females).

And - via exactly the same reasoning - I also entirely understand and respect that there are some males who (again, unlike me and my own internalised experience) identify existentially not as the gender "man", but either as the gender "woman" or as a non-binary gender which is nether "man" or "woman".

There are, of course, still - increasingly strangely - some people within modern liberal democracies (as opposed to, say, repressive theocracies) who refuse to recognise homosexuality or non-binary sexuality as genuine lived conditions: they view those who profess as such to be either mentally ill, going against the natural law of some deity or other, or simply lying. And further, these deniers typically approach any challenge to their own views with the three-pronged "I know all about the human condition perfectly well, thank you", "I don't need any fashionable lectures from the likes of you: we've managed just fine for thousands of years without pandering to this sort of nonsense", and "I won't be told what to think".

And - regrettably, but still somewhat understandably owing to the relatively new "mass-market" exposure of the condition - there are still plenty of reactionary people who similarly refuse to recognise (let alone respect) the notion of a person's gender identity not being one-to-one mapped to their biological sex. They view those who profess as such to be either mentally ill, going against the natural law of some deity or other, or simply lying. And further, these deniers typically approach any challenge to their own views with the three-pronged "I know all about............" etc, etc.


* Which is to say: not especially. Because it really doesn't take much of any of those qualities to figure this out properly....

 

[LondonJohn]

Are there any parameters which might possibly delimit which gender identities actually exist? Seems to me that anyone can claim to be any "alternative gender" (e.g. https://gender.wikia.org/wiki/Xenogender) and that's sort of all that matters.

Seems to me that you're getting (or maybe you're allowing yourself to get) entirely hung up on this notion of "...can claim to be...."

See: to me, your language here appears to imply one of, or any combination of, a) these people somehow have a choice in their gender identity, and/or b) if someone's gender identity is what they themselves say it is, how can "we" treat this as valid when we cannot test their "claim" against objective yardsticks, and/or c) some (or maybe all??) of these people ought to be treated either as mentally ill people or as liars.


And, even though I entirely understand that it's in no way a simple read-across analogy (but it's wholly fit for purpose in the following sense): would you similarly talk of people "claiming to be" sexually attracted to others of their own sex (or anything on the non-binary spectrum of sexuality)....?

 

[LondonJohn]

If I'm sexually attracted to women, and I perceive that you are a man, I'm not going to be sexually attracted to you. You telling me that you perceive yourself as a woman isn't going to change my (lack of) sexual attraction. It's 100% what's going on in my head that matters there.

*slaps self on head*

*then uses same hand to shield eyes from the all kinds of wrong/inappropriate/misunderstanding/misrepresentative on display in this post*

 

[theprestige]

*slaps self on head*

*then uses same hand to shield eyes from the all kinds of wrong/inappropriate/misunderstanding/misrepresentative on display in this post*

Name one wrong thing in that post.

 

[HansMustermann]

There's zero "discussion" to be had around this point: the gender identity pf a person is 100% to do with (and is solely to do with) the consideration of that person. It's in no way whatsoever defined with reference to the way in which others perceive the presentation of that person.

I have a feeling that you're talking past each other, in one big equivocation exercise.

You're talking about SELF-identity, which, yes, it's up to you. Whether you identify yourself as man, woman, neither, both, other, cat or attack helicopter, is entirely in your head. I'll cheerfully grant that there's nothing wrong with any of that. Even for Mr Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche over there. Good for you. Thumbs up. I'll support you all the way.

What theprestige seems to be talking about is the demand that others also identify you as that. But, see, what I identify you as, that's in MY head. And basically, sorry, you have no right to tell me what it should be, just as I have no right to tell you what the previous one should be. If I think that that guy looks like just that: a guy, and not like a helicopter, that's that, really.

I might decide to play along if you give me enough hints (like, Mr Comanche should really try wearing a propeller beanie) but do understand that it's voluntary and not some kind of obligation.

The problem is that there's a lot of equivocation going around. And not just between those two, but also we just had a link to someone trying to say self-identity and biology are the same thing.

In fact, it's all one big equivocation and motte-and-bailey crossover, where a lot of people seem to SAY that it's about their self-identity and their right to it (a right which, again, I'll fully grant that they do have), but it ends up somehow meaning that they can:
- flat out dictate how OTHERS identify them
- turn any unrelated conversation into being about their issue
- make demands about which sports team they should be allowed on, which dorm they should sleep in, etc
And so on.

Which actually is no longer even remotely the same thing.

 

[d4m10n]

Seems to me that you're getting (or maybe you're allowing yourself to get) entirely hung up on this notion of "...can claim to be...."

Seems to me you entirely dodged the question.

 

[LondonJohn]

Seems to me you entirely dodged the question.

There's no question to dodge. The link you provided describes nothing more than non-binary transgender identity.

So the (obvious) answer to the general question around the boundaries/limits of gender identity is this: the boundaries/limits are "man" at one end and "woman" at the other end.

Meanwhile, would you perhaps respond by (ironically) not dodging the question about why you chose to employ the term "claims to be" wrt a person's statement of their gender identity?

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a feeling that you're talking past each other, in one big equivocation exercise.

You're talking about SELF-identity, which, yes, it's up to you. Whether you identify yourself as man, woman, neither, both, other, cat or attack helicopter, is entirely in your head. I'll cheerfully grant that there's nothing wrong with any of that. Even for Mr Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche over there. Good for you. Thumbs up. I'll support you all the way.

What theprestige seems to be talking about is the demand that others also identify you as that. But, see, what I identify you as, that's in MY head. And basically, sorry, you have no right to tell me what it should be, just as I have no right to tell you what the previous one should be. If I think that that guy looks like just that: a guy, and not like a helicopter, that's that, really.

I might decide to play along if you give me enough hints (like, Mr Comanche should really try wearing a propeller beanie) but do understand that it's voluntary and not some kind of obligation.

The problem is that there's a lot of equivocation going around. And not just between those two, but also we just had a link to someone trying to say self-identity and biology are the same thing.

In fact, it's all one big equivocation and motte-and-bailey crossover, where a lot of people seem to SAY that it's about their self-identity and their right to it (a right which, again, I'll fully grant that they do have), but it ends up somehow meaning that they can:
- flat out dictate how OTHERS identify them
- turn any unrelated conversation into being about their issue
- make demands about which sports team they should be allowed on, which dorm they should sleep in, etc
And so on.

Which actually is no longer even remotely the same thing.

You've just adequately demonstrated your continuing ignorance/misinterpretation/misrepresentation of transgender identity.

Oh and your breezy comparison between a) a person stating that they have a non-binary gender identity and b) a person stating that they identify as an attack helicopter.... is pretty much as offensive to people identifying as transgender as it is ignorant. But at the same time, at least it serves as a useful ready-reckoner wrt your belief system around this issue. So, thanks for that.... I guess.

 

[HansMustermann]

You've just adequately demonstrated your continuing ignorance/misinterpretation/misrepresentation of transgender identity.

Oh and your breezy comparison between a) a person stating that they have a non-binary gender identity and b) a person stating that they identify as an attack helicopter.... is pretty much as offensive to people identifying as transgender as it is ignorant. But at the same time, at least it serves as a useful ready-reckoner wrt your belief system around this issue. So, thanks for that.... I guess.

So, we're back to just browbeating?

Also, considering that I actually have an experience with being trans-gender and gender fluid -- and as early as the early 80's, no less, so I didn't get hordes of people falling over themselves to accommodate it -- remind me, what are YOUR qualifications to be lecturing me about how it works or what my belief system should be? I mean, seriously, if I'm ignorant and you're the one qualified to lecture, what ARE your qualifications there?

 

[arthwollipot]

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).

One nonbinary person I know very well both possesses a magnificent set of mutton chops, and likes to wear frilly dresses. Another presents almost entirely as butch lesbian. Nonbinaryness does not require androgynous presentation.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, we're back to just browbeating?

Also, considering that I actually have an experience with being trans-gender and gender fluid -- and as early as the early 80's, no less, so I didn't get hordes of people falling over themselves to accommodate it -- remind me, what are YOUR qualifications to be lecturing me about how it works or what my belief system should be? I mean, seriously, if I'm ignorant and you're the one qualified to lecture, what ARE your qualifications there?

I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm pointing out faulty reasoning, ignorance, and offensive "comparisons".

To explain my position, I'd return again to the topic of sexuality. If Person A harbours the opinion that Mr X's professed homosexuality isn't valid, and/or that it's not up to Mr X to decide what his sexuality he is (but rather that it's entirely for others to decide what Mr X's sexuality is), then I'd make exactly the same observations to Person A as I am making to you wrt transgender identity: pointing out faulty reasoning, ignorance, and offensive "comparisons".

 

[LondonJohn]

One nonbinary person I know very well both possesses a magnificent set of mutton chops, and likes to wear frilly dresses. Another presents almost entirely as butch lesbian. Nonbinaryness does not require androgynous presentation.

Yes. Indeed, non-binary gender identity does not require visual presentation of any particular kind whatsoever (with the same also being true of binary transgender identity, of course).

 

[Roboramma]

If I'm sexually attracted to women, and I perceive that you are a man, I'm not going to be sexually attracted to you. You telling me that you perceive yourself as a woman isn't going to change my (lack of) sexual attraction. It's 100% what's going on in my head that matters there.

*slaps self on head*

*then uses same hand to shield eyes from the all kinds of wrong/inappropriate/misunderstanding/misrepresentative on display in this post*

Wow.

Out of curiosity, does anyone else think that there's anything wrong with theprestige's post?

Arthwollipot? Upchurch?

I'd be interested in other people's takes here.

Personally theprestige's post seems entirely reasonable to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, let's. Because I also happen to know that nobody normal actually thinks it's painful or bigoted or anything if they've been called by the wrong title.

One of mom's stories is how a couple of classmates decided to call her Miss Mustermann (or rather the local i18n version of it) after she got married in college. That is the combination of Miss and the family name she got from her husband. She just found it funny.

Or I've been misgendered before. The last time actually on work chat. In fact, he actually distorted my name into a girl name. Couldn't care less.

That's nice. Do you understand that your experience is not necessarily equivalent to that of others? Your gender expression is clearly not as significant a part of your sense of identity as it is for others. Just because you don't care if you're misgendered doesn't mean that nobody should care. There are people who have been misgendered all their lives, and they feel it keenly. Misgendering might not be important to everyone, but it is important to some people and we should respect that.

As I was saying, it seems to me like those demanding that I treat it as 100% certainty and perfectly logical, or it's painful for them, are just telling me that they don't seem to be that certain themselves. If everyone has to walk on eggshells around it, lest it starts feeling painful, that uncomfortable sensation is just what cognitive dissonance feels. And it means it's actually a very wobbly and unsupported part of their mental model.

So let's start helping them to support it, rather than pulling supports away.

So, anyway, far from me to tell them that they can't still go for that mental model, BUT -- and this is a big fat BUT -- if they're not all that sure themselves that it's not just some counter-factual belief, then why is it an obligation for everyone else to act as if it's absolute truth? Doesn't it boil down to a bit of hypocrisy?

No, it boils down to respect.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm pointing out faulty reasoning, ignorance, and offensive "comparisons".

To explain my position, I'd return again to the topic of sexuality. If Person A harbours the opinion that Mr X's professed homosexuality isn't valid, and/or that it's not up to Mr X to decide what his sexuality he is (but rather that it's entirely for others to decide what Mr X's sexuality is), then I'd make exactly the same observations to Person A as I am making to you wrt transgender identity: pointing out faulty reasoning, ignorance, and offensive "comparisons".

But I already granted that whatever you profess to identify as IS perfectly valid. Repeatedly, in fact.

In fact, I'm literally even willing to accommodate the stereotypical high school girl who identifies as a cat (and I'm not making it up: they actually exist) or the guy saying he's an attack helicopter. I'm not going to say she "only claims to be" a cat, or he only claims to be a helicopter. It's not even hyperbole or ironic or anything. It's not even a comparison, actually. I'll literally take either of those at their word, if they say so.

So your objection is...? What? That I'm also granting the same rights to some people you don't want to?