Non-binary identities are valid

[Belz...]

****, Zaganza. Now you've gotten TM and me to agree on something!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

****, Zaganza. Now you've gotten TM and me to agree on something!

Mission accomplished.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How on earth does that work? I'm a masculine guy attracted to masculine guys, and was so in adolescence. Does that mean I'm female gender? Or that the guys I find hot are female gender?

As I wrote a further up, I'm mostly confabulating here. Please don't take anything i write too seriously.


Growing up, the only portrayal of homosexual partners I encountered was the stereotypical "Bitch-Butch" dynamic, in media and in my circle of friendship.

I think that is because people just didn't have the imagination yet to completely separate gender-roles from gender-identity, or had to live in a world that couldn't make sense of a non-binary identity.

 

[Belz...]

Mission accomplished.

Actually your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to clarify how you define "gender" so that I can evaluate whether or not our preceding exchange makes sense to me.

As always should you or any member of your IMF team be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to clarify how you define "gender" so that I can evaluate whether or not our preceding exchange makes sense to me.

As always should you or any member of your IMF team be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

I refuse.

My point is that we have moved passed the point where gender should be a relevant description: the Pill removed "babymaking" as the female gender identifier.
the fact that we can merge to oocyctes to create a viable zygote removed the need for sperm.

People are attracted to people.
I'm not sure it is very productive to try get more than that out of the gender discussion.

 

[Belz...]

My point is that we have moved passed the point where gender should be a relevant description: the Pill removed "babymaking" as the female gender identifier.

Which it never was. "Barren" women were always a thing, and no one ever said that they weren't women.

the fact that we can merge to oocyctes to create a viable zygote removed the need for sperm.

People are attracted to people.
I'm not sure it is very productive to try get more than that out of the gender discussion.

In a single post you have confused gender with biological sex, sexual orientation and fertility, and a few posts up you confused it with gender identity and gender roles.

I think the problem is that you have no idea what we're talking about.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Maybe.

But I would argue neither has anyone else.


As for your example: barren women were indeed not considered to be women for purposes of marriage, i.e. a marriage could be annulled as if it never happened if a wife couldn't have children.

 

[d4m10n]

Actually your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to clarify how you define "gender"...

I know you're not talking to me here, but why can't we just use the gender^WP in the usual sense of the term given in the wiki?

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity. Most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders (boys/men and girls/women); those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella term non-binary or genderqueer.

Most of this seems straightforward enough, though some of these terms may be viciously recursive.

 

[theprestige]

I refuse.

My point is that we have moved passed the point where gender should be a relevant description: the Pill removed "babymaking" as the female gender identifier.
the fact that we can merge to oocyctes to create a viable zygote removed the need for sperm.

People are attracted to people.
I'm not sure it is very productive to try get more than that out of the gender discussion.

This is adorable!

---

"Why won't you go out with me?"

"I'm gay."

"So?"

"So I'm attracted to dudes. Sorry."

"But we have moved passed the point where gender should be a relevant description! People are attracted to people!"

"That doesn't seem very productive. Or realistic."

"No, you're not very productive!"

 

[theprestige]

Which it never was. "Barren" women were always a thing, and no one ever said that they weren't women.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure many cultures and communities throughout history have treated barren women as less-than-women.

 

[zooterkin]

I think arthwollipot sort of did, actually, at least wrt presentation to the outside world.

Well, you can think of yourself however you wish, and sympathetic people may well go along with your expressed wishes (and potentially bizarre choice of invented pronouns), but forcing everyone in the world to comply is perhaps a little optimistic.

It feels a bit like a teen rebellion thing, where you refuse to be pigeon-holed by society, with an element of reacting against straw man positions. “I’m not female because I don’t like pink and dressing up like a princess, so I demand to be called something else”, when in fact you can do pretty much what you like, at least in most Western democracies. The only real issues are with things that are related to physical biology.

I think it may also mean you get to use any toilets or changing rooms you feel like using, since those are segregated by gender these days. That actually sounds liberating, especially at skeptic conferences where only the men's has a queue.

I’ve been to SF Cons that were very inclusive, and they had non-segregated toilet facilities.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, you can think of yourself however you wish, and sympathetic people may well go along with your expressed wishes (and potentially bizarre choice of invented pronouns), but forcing everyone in the world to comply is perhaps a little optimistic.

Perhaps so, but don't tell that to Gregor Murray.

 

[zooterkin]

Perhaps so, but don't tell that to Gregor Murray.

I was confused for a minute or two, since that's the name of one of the local councillors for the ward where I live.

 

[d4m10n]

I was confused for a minute or two, since that's the name of one of the local councillors for the ward where I live.

Isn't that the same person from the Forstater case, though?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

I know you're not talking to me here, but why can't we just use the gender^WP in the usual sense of the term given in the wiki?



Most of this seems straightforward enough, though some of these terms may be viciously recursive.

Straightforward but vague. It can be this, or this, or that. It's essentially anything you want, but it's still difficult too pinpoint.

But I would argue neither has anyone

else.

Only if you think everyone else is confusing these terms. Not all of us are.

As for your example: barren women were indeed not considered to be women for purposes of marriage, i.e. a marriage could be annulled as if it never happened if a wife couldn't have children.

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?

 

[Belz...]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure many cultures and communities throughout history have treated barren women as less-than-women.

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?

 

[d4m10n]

Straightforward but vague. It can be this, or this, or that. It's essentially anything you want, but it's still difficult too pinpoint.

I'm gonna defer to Emily's Cat on the key definitions for now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[MisAndreG]

No, it can’t be unpacked in a sensible way any more than flat earth nonsense can be. I’m shocked at how smart people can be so silly when it comes to this cultish nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

I'm gonna defer to Emily's Cat on the key definitions for now.

In fact, let's make Cat our official dictionary.

No, it can’t be unpacked in a sensible way any more than flat earth nonsense can be. I’m shocked at how smart people can be so silly when it comes to this cultish nonsense.

Sorry, what are you talking about here? The definition of gender?

 

[arthwollipot]

A lot to reply to here, so bear with me. I'm going to selectively quote here for brevity - if you have made a statement that I have not quoted, that means I have no disagreement with that statement.

But it appears to imply that you are somewhere in between. You don't have to be in between two categories. The categories and anything in between might be something that has no relevance to me.

Fair enough. I have been interpreting what you say as referring to a spectrum, with male at one end and female at the other, and everything else, including nonbinariness, in between. Now I see that this is not what you have been saying, I will stop referring to gender as a spectrum.

Some people are male, some people are female, and some people are neither. Some people are both. Some people are male sometimes, and some people are female sometimes. There are many different ways to identify, including not identifying at all. It's like when someone asks what religion you are, and you say you're not a religion at all. You aren't somewhere between Catholic and Protestant, you're neither of them.

Is this a better way of thinking about it?

Who is talking about denying or erasing anything?

If I don't understand why something is important to someone I can still acknowledge that it is important.

Some different coloured pieces of cloth are very important to some people for reasons that i don't understand, but I still would not burn them or soil them.

Lots of people deliberately misgender people because they do not accept those peoples' gender identity. That can be incredibly hurtful, depending on who they are referring to. Misgendering has been described as a form of violence. I have not said that anyone participating in this discussion has done that, and I apologise for being unclear to anyone who has interpreted what I said in that way.

But, again, you miss the point. I am not really accepting him as a man if I have absolutely no idea what he means by "man". Am I?

Why not?

Why is it weird?

Because the question as stated is not a reasonable question that any real person would ask. If a trans man ask you to accept that they are a man, that's one thing. But I don't understand how there could be any circumstances where a trans man might ask that question in the convoluted way that you suggested.

You are asking me to adopt what is generally regarded as a transphobic definition of "man" when I apply it to myself and use another definition which I have literally no way of understanding for others.

But you don't think it matters because you think it would be weird for people to ask if I apply the transphobic definition for myself.

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.

But you have to understand to understand.

Yes, but why do you have to understand? No-one is asking you to understand, only to accept, which you already do.

You are putting words into my mouth. What I said is that I don't have an inkling of what you mean by gender, or any idea about how to start finding out what you mean by it.

And you don't need to. I say I am a man. I don't care what you understand that to mean, or whether you understand it at all. Just refer to me as a man and use the pronouns he/him and we'll be good.

Can anyone give a working definition of what 'gender non-binary' actually means, in practice?

Neither male nor female. This might help.

Not agreeing with someone is not erasing their feelings. Otherwise I'd be erasing theists' feelings all the time.

There can be circumstances where it's not and you aren't, but there can also be circumstances where it is and you are.

I think it may also mean you get to use any toilets or changing rooms you feel like using, since those are segregated by gender these days. That actually sounds liberating, especially at skeptic conferences where only the men's has a queue.

Well, there are people who are working towards introducing desegregated toilets and changing rooms, but there is considerable resistance from gender traditionalists.