Non-binary identities are valid

[Emily's Cat]

Neither of these is the point at all. Once again, when we're talking about whether Person A loves Person B, you're talking purely about how Person B perceives the credibility of Person B's love.

Person A either loves Person B, or they do not love Person B (let's keep things binary for the moment, for the sake of simplifying the argument). Person A's observable manifestations of their feelings towards Person B are the only thing that allows Person B to adjudicate Person A's feelings towards them (or to adjudicate whether or not Person A is being sincere in their professions of love).

I'm in no way suggesting that it's not critically important a) for Person A (assuming they state that they love Person B) to manifest their love for Person B through observable acts; or b) for Person B to feel - via their observation of Person A's acts towards them - secure in the knowledge/belief that Person A does indeed love them.

But

None of that changes the fundamental fact that Person A's love (or otherwise) of Person B is something which is intrinsically wholly within the internalised experience of Person A. All that Person B is doing is trying to find ways to confirm (or otherwise) Person A's love for them.

If we run with this analogy, what is being asked for is that Person B is obligated to accept Person A's declaration of love, regardless of whether Person A actually behaves in a loving manner, or exhibits anything that a rational human would conceive of as love. Furthermore, Person B is being obligated to accept that Person B loves them, and that Person A's declared feeling of love is sufficient for Person B to be forced to marry Person A even if they do not believe that Person A actually does love them, and regardless of whether Person B loves Person A in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

LOL it's nothing more than (absurdly simple) logic:

A person can possess a transgender identity without experiencing gender dysphoria.

A person cannot experience gender dysphoria without first possessing a transgender identity.

Simple analysis and re-framing of the above therefore shows that:

a) gender dysphoria does not (and cannot) give rise to transgender identity

whereas

b) transgender identity can give rise to gender dysphoria.

I do not think there is general consensus on either of your presumed axioms. I do not believe it is settled that a person can be transgender without having dysphoria - that is actually a pretty strong point of contention among the trans community itself.

I also don't think there's any consensus that a person cannot experience gender dysphoria without being transgender. On that point, I rather think that the steadily increasing numbers of de-transitioners challenges your assumption. I'd say that Keira Bell, for instance, experienced gender dysphoria but was not transgender. Her dysphoria alleviated when she came to terms with her own mental state, background issues, and her sexed body. The fact that she experienced dysphoria without actually being transgender - and the ensuing medicalization that she was herded into - was the basis of her case.

 

[d4m10n]

I've just remembered that the very title of this thread is "Non-binary identities are valid". So maybe you should almost take up arms against d4m10n, who wrote the thread's title........

For the record, I remain agnostic on the truth value of that title. Skeptics would need something more than vague allusions to the DSM-5 (no page references given) to confirm the truth thereof.

 

[arthwollipot]

So if someone claims to be an attack helicopter in their heart of hearts, you're under no obligation to humour them... same thing if they claim to be black, or Napoleon, or a fox. Why is gender different?

The claim to identify as an attack helicopter was a deliberate and malicious mockery of transgender identity, and it should be dismissed as such. The claim to be black is an artificial hypothetical that is deliberately chosen to be used as an argument against transgender identity. The claim to be Napoleon is a harmful stereotype of mental illness, and the claim to be a fox is really a claim of being therian/otherkin, about which see the thread I linked to earlier, and therefore is an outlier in this list as it isn't too different from gender at all.

I hope that explains why gender identity is different from those other things you mentioned.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Demand of behavior" or "mandate of behavior" is even better, since there's significant consequences for non compliance.

You're expected to not pee in the street. If you do, there are consequences. If you interpret this as a "demand" or a "mandate", then okay, that's fine. I see a distinction. Different words may have similar but subtly distinct meanings. That's why different words exist. English would be much simpler if we could just lump all words with similar meanings under one word. But we don't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Infants have no gender identity then?
Without the ability to clearly express a preferred pronoun, any use of pronouns must then be "misgendering", no?

They/them is still appropriate, being the default pronoun to use when you don't know.

 

[d4m10n]

...the claim to be a fox is really a claim of being therian/otherkin, about which see the thread I linked to earlier, and therefore is an outlier in this list as it isn't too different from gender at all.

Is there a separate thread for the whole otherkin thing? It seems prima facie waaaay less plausible than non-binarism from where I'm sitting.

 

[arthwollipot]

As a male of the species, you're privileged to not have to worry about your, or anyone else's genitals almost all the time. As a female of the species, and the victim of sexual assault and attempted rape, other people's genitals frequently have a bit more of an impact on my life.

I accept this, and have already stopped using genitals as the sole indicator of gender, as I have mentioned previously.

How are you defining "wrong" in this context? Does that same definition of "wrong" extend to other scenarios unrelated to gender?

"Wrong" meaning "not the pronouns someone asked you to use".

What do you consider a "sense of being female"? Can you describe what criteria of "female" you're using in your assessment?

I try to imagine what it would be like to have breasts, a uterus, to menstruate, to present as female, to adopt an unambiguously female name, or to refer to myself as she/her. It's not much, but it's all I've got.

You can express your preference, but there's more to it than that. At some point, there's got to be a consideration of whether your request is reasonable and rational.

Okay, but if it says on my birth certificate that my name is "John Smith", and I say that I now want to be called "Jack Jones", is that reasonable and rational? Of course it is. The rest of your argument is just a slippery slope and irrelevant to the question at hand. Which, I remind you and all other readers, is whether non-binary identities are valid.

 

[arthwollipot]

Or d) that some people who are not in any way dysphoric can *claim to be trans or non-binary* in order to gain access to situations they would otherwise be rightfully excluded from, either for person gain or for nefarious purposes.

Given that the entirety of gender identity is inside a person's head, and that there is exactly zero ways to validate their claim... It presents a massive gaping loophole open to abuse.

Someone who feigns being transgender in order to gain access to situations they would otherwise be excluded from for nefarious purposes is not transgender. They are a charlatan and a fraud, and any transgender person or ally should rightly repudiate and condemn such disgusting and harmful behaviour.

 

[arthwollipot]

You might be interested in Darat's final paragraph here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13415453#post13415453

Yes? I completely agree with that paragraph. And?

 

[arthwollipot]

Sure, if we're talking personal interactions among friends. But her feelings about her hair color, regardless of how intense they are, don't alter reality. In any categorization where "natural redheads" are relevant, she should rightly be disqualified. And in situations where "natural blondes" are the category, she should rightly be included. I believe there is a subset of other genetic markers that are common among natural redheads... which she will not have.

What situations might those be?

 

[arthwollipot]

Source?

There are plenty of sources for this. Here's one that I just found by Googling "difference between transgender identity and gender dysphoria".

https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people

What is gender dysphoria?
For some transgender people, the difference between the gender they are thought to be at birth and the gender they know themselves to be can lead to serious emotional distress that affects their health and everyday lives if not addressed. Gender dysphoria is the medical diagnosis for someone who experiences this distress.

Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. On its own, being transgender is not considered a medical condition. Many transgender people do not experience serious anxiety or stress associated with the difference between their gender identity and their gender of birth, and so may not have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria can often be relieved by expressing one’s gender in a way that the person is comfortable with. That can include dressing and grooming in a way that reflects who one knows they are, using a different name or pronoun, and, for some, taking medical steps to physically change their body. All major medical organizations in the United States recognize that living according to one’s gender identity is an effective, safe and medically necessary treatment for many people who have gender dysphoria.

It's important to remember that while being transgender is not in itself an illness, many transgender people need to deal with physical and mental health problems because of widespread discrimination and stigma. Many transgender people live in a society that tells them that their deeply held identity is wrong or deviant. Some transgender people have lost their families, their jobs, their homes, and their support, and some experience harassment and even violence. Transgender children may experience rejection or even emotional or physical abuse at home, at school, or in their communities. These kinds of experiences can be challenging for anyone, and for some people, it can lead to anxiety disorders, depression, and other mental health conditions. But these conditions are not caused by having a transgender identity: they're a result of the intolerance many transgender people have to deal with. Many transgender people – especially transgender people who are accepted and valued in their communities – are able to live healthy and fulfilling lives.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is there a separate thread for the whole otherkin thing? It seems prima facie waaaay less plausible than non-binarism from where I'm sitting.

As I said, I linked to it earlier, but here it is again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264422

 

[Roboramma]

Yes? I completely agree with that paragraph. And?

That according to the paragraph that you agree with, the "correct" pronouns aren't necessarily the ones that you ask others to use. Which contradicts this:

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.

The issue here being that sometimes people can lie.

I think a valid response on your part is that situations in which people are motivated to lie about which pronouns they want you to use are quite rare and usually easily identifiable, so that general case could still follow something like your logic.
Following your analogy, people can lie about their names as well, and if, for instance, a criminal engaging in identity theft, or simply a conman working under an alias, is found out, it's reasonable to call them out and use their actual name. But generally when someone tells us their name we should believe them.

Still, I think you should modify "literally can't be wrong". theprestige has given you a case, which you agree with, where you can be wrong.

 

[arthwollipot]

That according to the paragraph that you agree with, the "correct" pronouns aren't necessarily the ones that you ask others to use.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same paragraph. The one you linked to is the one where Darat tells everybody not to play silly buggers with their pronouns, yes? If that's the one that you intended to link me to, I'm sorry but I can't see anything in that paragraph that remotely resembles what you're saying.

Which contradicts this:



The issue here being that sometimes people can lie.

I think a valid response on your part is that situations in which people are motivated to lie about which pronouns they want you to use are quite rare and usually easily identifiable, so that general case could still follow something like your logic.

Okay, I'm following this...

Following your analogy, people can lie about their names as well, and if, for instance, a criminal engaging in identity theft, or simply a conman working under an alias, is found out, it's reasonable to call them out and use their actual name. But generally when someone tells us their name we should believe them.

Still, I think you should modify "literally can't be wrong". theprestige has given you a case, which you agree with, where you can be wrong.

I grant that as an exception to my general rule. Sorry, "rule". More like a guideline really. But I can't help thinking that this is very much a fringe case. On the fringiest edge of fringe, honestly.

 

[HansMustermann]

*sigh*

Three points:

1) Point to me somewhere where it says that a certain group should not be granted fair civil rights simply on account of its scarcity in relative population terms.

The main point still was that swinging your dick around in a women's communal shower (which is what for example prisons have) is not a "right" in the first place. If it's at the disadvantage of others, it's a privilege.

2) Given that we are indeed talking about an exceedingly small proportion of transgender people compared with cisgender people, it's hard therefore to even conceive theoretically of the sort of endemic abuse/disadvantaging of the cisgender population by the transgender population.

Your refusing to acknowledge the problems even after being repeatedly stated is not really an argument. There's no such thing as some problem being non-existent just because some guy is too... mentally unequipped by half to imagine it even after 30 pages of it being explained to him. General Relativity doesn't become wrong because Pixie Of Key can't imagine it, and neither does this on your account.

3) As I've stated very many times before: the ethical thing to do if there are concerns that the granting of fair civil rights to Group A might lead to negative outcomes for Group B..... is not to address that by rowing back on the granting of civil rights to Group A (if at all possible). The ethical thing to do is: firstly, put in place all reasonable pre-emptive mechanisms to minimise the likelihood of negative outcomes for Group B (I've also outlined - many times before - what I believe those mechanisms should be); then secondly, monitor the situation carefully to see what happens in the real world, and try to modify or add to the minimisation mechanisms accordingly; then thirdly - and only if the first two fail to work - consider altering or even removing the civil rights afforded to Group A.

I haven't seen you actually propose any such, even when asked point blank what would those measures be. So basically all you're doing there is empty blah, blah, handwave, more blah, blah, blah.

By the way, nice touch with the "incel" barb - it really added to the credibility of your position!

Yes, well, considering that all you've done to support your point was dumb browbeating, your doing some more above is hardly making any difference.

 

[HansMustermann]

There are plenty of sources for this. Here's one that I just found by Googling "difference between transgender identity and gender dysphoria".

https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people

That isn't saying the same thing as what was asked to support, namely the explanation that LJ felt like just making up himself while still claiming he's going by the DSM-5. Which he probably didn't even actually read, frankly.

The actual MEDICAL sources don't actually say that a different gender identity is THE explanation for gender dysphoria. Which is what LJ had made up there. In fact, it's very much possible to score the majority of the points on either the adult or the child checklist without actually identifying as a different gender. And you don't even need the majority, you only need any TWO to qualify.

In fact, "A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)" is just one of the points on the list, namely the last one. Pretty much everything else just says at most you wish you were one or wish you looked like one, which is a very different concept from actually identifying as one. (Simple example: when I was in high school I wished I were a ninja, but that doesn't mean I actually thought I am one.)

Again, you can score the two points to qualify without that one, so saying that that one is what explains gender dysphoria -- as, again, LJ was making it up -- is not logically supported in any way. You can't say that X explains Y, if you can be Y without being X.

In fact, again, you can score the necessary two without even having a WISH to be another gender, much less the one that says you actually identify as one. Just wishing you LOOKED more like a woman and less like a guy, or viceversa, in just the secondary sex characteristics is exactly two such points, and thus enough. Quite literally, if you happen to have XX chromosomes and just really want to dress like a guy and hide your breasts, congrats, you qualify. Even if you explicitly don't actually want to BE the opposite gender.

Especially for children, the list is mostly stuff like preferring toys associated with the other gender, or preferring to play with kids of the other gender, and other stuff that is not even actually all that strongly indicating that one actually thinks of oneself as being the other gender.

At any rate, the DSM-5 doesn't say what the cause is. In fact, as I was saying, the official position is that nobody knows what the hell causes it.

In fact, it doesn't even make a whole lot of sense for the causality to be in that direction. You'd think someone would first notice they're uncomfortable with their assigned roles and such, before they figure out it's more comfortable to think of themselves as the opposite, rather than the other way around.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually... it's more like the 1.5% to 2% of the population who do not have gender dysphoria, have undergone no surgical transition, don't intend to undergo any surgical transition, and whose sole argument is that they "feel like a woman" in some vague and indefinable sense.

Last I heard, it was 0.58% of the population for both genders combined in the USA, so yeah, that 1.5 to 2% is massively high-balling it.

 

[arthwollipot]

The actual MEDICAL sources don't actually say that a different gender identity is THE explanation for gender dysphoria. Which is what LJ had made up there.

I think I personally would say that medical sources say that a different gender identity is AN explanation for gender dysphoria. And I think that LJ would probably agree with this slight modification.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think I personally would say that medical sources say that a different gender identity is AN explanation for gender dysphoria.

I can go with that. That's just not what LJ is saying.

And I think that LJ would probably agree with this slight modification.

We'll see.