Non-binary identities are valid

[angrysoba]

At least partially, yes.

Partially? No, completely.

 

[arthwollipot]

Partially? No, completely.

At least partially. It is likely to be influenced by external factors such as the environment in which a person was raised. It seems likely to me that people who are raised in an environment where the gender binary is not strongly emphasised will have a less strong personal idea of what gender is.

 

[HansMustermann]

I can confirm that. I may have mentioned a few times before that I was raised to be both, at different times, and I utterly don't get what the fuss is over identity.

 

[Belz...]

Mmmm hmmmm. Well, feel free to try to defend your analogy that sex is like height. I'm still wondering what feelings you have that arise solely from your being whatever sex you are, and from no other sources, and how you tell.

That has nothing to do with what I said, though. All I'm saying is that I know what it is to be as tall as I am, but not what it is to be, say, taller. I know what it is to be a man but not a woman.

No. The analogy isn’t worth pursuing and it doesn’t illuminate anything.

If sex is a biological set of characteristics then we don’t need to describe it in terms of how it feels.

You seem to say that you disagree with me but then you're saying the same thing I am.

Especially since, as was my point, it's impossible to determine how it feels.

It's impossible to determine how I feel? Sorry, I don't get your point.

 

[Belz...]

"Male" can describe both "biological sex" (which for the purposes of this discussion I will assume is a real thing and defined accurately) and gender identity.

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

But again, don't conflate the two.

You just conflated the two!

You literally said that male is not a gender identity. How does that not deny the validity of someone whose gender identity is male?

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.

Excellent! As I said, you're starting to understand. Gender does not have an objective definition, and means different things to different people.

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.

 

[shuttlt]

And also people can simulate height changes by standing on objects.

If I cosplay as Justin Trudeau, do I know what it is like to be black?

 

[TragicMonkey]

That has nothing to do with what I said, though. All I'm saying is that I know what it is to be as tall as I am, but not what it is to be, say, taller. I know what it is to be a man but not a woman.

It's impossible to determine how I feel? Sorry, I don't get your point.

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? The point is that if you have always experienced a state, for every instant of your existence, without ever having that state change or be switched off, you cannot distinguish which feelings you have are caused by that state.

 

[Belz...]

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?

That is a ridiculous question not at all analogous to height or sex because it contains no observable states for my feelings. I can observe my height and weight and some of my sexual characeristics, and my feelings, but I can't know those of other people. I can only extrapolate from observing their behaviour.

The point is that if you have always experienced a state, for every instant of your existence, without ever having that state change or be switched off, you cannot distinguish which feelings you have are caused by that state.

That was not my claim. This is the second time I correct you on this: am I not talking about distinguishing anything; only about knowing what the current state feels like. Either way, we do not define biological sex by what it feels.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That is a ridiculous question not at all analogous to height or sex because it contains no observable states for my feelings. I can observe my height and weight and some of my sexual characeristics, and my feelings, but I can't know those of other people. I can only extrapolate from observing their behaviour.

You can observe some of your sexual characteristics but not all of them. You cannot know how it feels to have a Y chromosome versus not having a Y chromosome because you have never not experienced that state, and cannot distinguish any feelings you have that come from that source from any other feelings you have that come from other sources.

That was not my claim. This is the second time I correct you on this: am I not talking about distinguishing anything; only about knowing what the current state feels like.

If you cannot distinguish the feelings that come from being A from the feelings that come from being B because you have always been both A and B, then it means you do not know what feelings come from being A. Hence you do not know how it feels to be A. You can only answer for the feelings that come from AB. For all you know, every feeling you have arises from being B, and A is completely without feeling entirely. You have no way to tell.

Either way, we do not define biological sex by what it feels.

Agreed, which is why nobody made that claim.

 

[Belz...]

You can observe some of your sexual characteristics but not all of them.

Obviously, but so what? I observe enough to know that it's like in basic terms. No one claimed that you can know everything about it. It's not a requisite in order to know what it's like.

If you cannot distinguish the feelings that come from being A from the feelings that come from being B because you have always been both A and B, then it means you do not know what feelings come from being A. Hence you do not know how it feels to be A. You can only answer for the feelings that come from AB. For all you know, every feeling you have arises from being B, and A is completely without feeling entirely. You have no way to tell.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm parsing this right. What's A and B in this instance?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Obviously, but so what? I observe enough to know that it's like in basic terms. No one claimed that you can know everything about it. It's not a requisite in order to know what it's like.

I'm not saying you need to know everything about it. I'm pointing out that if you always experience several things, and never don't experience all of them simultaneously, and never experience just one by itself, you cannot determine how any one of those things actually feels. You know only the combination, not the individual components.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm parsing this right. What's A and B in this instance?

Two states that you have always been.

Resorting to another analogy: supposed you've never had the spices kloriam and ecciphant separately. The only time you've ever had either is when they're both mixed together. Not once have you tasted a single solitary grain of either, you've only had both at the same time.

Now: what does kloriam taste like? You've experienced kloriam, therefore you must know what it tastes like, right? That's what you're arguing.

What I'm arguing is that no, you don't know what kloriam tastes like because you've never had it without ecciphant. What you think of as the taste of kloriam is actually ecciphant. Kloriam is tasteless, and is added just as a rising agent. Without experiencing a state in isolation from other states, you cannot distinguish it from others and trace your feelings to their source.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not saying you need to know everything about it. I'm pointing out that if you always experience several things, and never don't experience all of them simultaneously, and never experience just one by itself, you cannot determine how any one of those things actually feels. You know only the combination, not the individual components.

Ok I understand now.

That might be true if we were all in isolation. But as it stands we interact with one another all the time and we can observe that the group with which we share characteristic A also shares some behaviours and reported feelings and such, regardless of whether they share characteristic B. By observation of other people we can, quite trivially I think, draw generally correction conclusions.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ok I understand now.

That might be true if we were all in isolation. But as it stands we interact with one another all the time and we can observe that the group with which we share characteristic A also shares some behaviours and reported feelings and such, regardless of whether they share characteristic B. By observation of other people we can, quite trivially I think, draw generally correction conclusions.

True-- but that suggests that what we think is caused by biology (or physics or chemistry) is actually created by social interaction. A male person who crashed on a desert island as an infant and grew up totally isolated from other humans might have an entirely different experience of being male as opposed to males surrounded by other males and females.

We won't know unless we can conduct some extremely unethical and probably physically gruesome experiments.

 

[Belz...]

True-- but that suggests that what we think is caused by biology (or physics or chemistry) is actually created by social interaction.

Not necessarily, but perhaps up to a degree. It's just that without other humans to live with we're probably missing out on quite a lot in terms of understanding, for sure.

We won't know unless we can conduct some extremely unethical and probably physically gruesome experiments.

Tell you what: you find suitable subjects and I'll see about the island.

 

[d4m10n]

Why?

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.

 

[Earthborn]

Not in the US, it isn't.

Rather recently it was. And on this very forum some people have argued in favour of using sex/gender registration on birth certificates for new forms of discrimination, for example for determining which restroom one is allowed into.

I doubt it is in Germany either. And I also doubt that where it DOES matter for those issues they take the ideas of "gender identity" as different than biological sex seriously to begin with.

Not sure why you use Germany as an example, but it is an interesting case. In Germany people can request to be registered "neutral" on their birth certificate.

Even supposing we stop recording that, it still has **** all to do with this nonsensical notion that doctors "assign" gender. That isn't what happens.

It is what happens. You just don't know what "assigning gender" means.

 

[Belz...]

Rather recently it was. And on this very forum some people have argued in favour of using sex/gender registration on birth certificates for new forms of discrimination, for example for determining which restroom one is allowed into.

Well, if we're in favour of letting trans people go into the restroom of their choice, how is one to know that they are actually trans? Otherwise what we're saying is "anyone can go into any restroom", which works for me.

It is what happens. You just don't know what "assigning gender" means.

No, they assign sex based on observation.

Are you saying that sex and gender are the same thing?

 

[Ziggurat]

It is what happens. You just don't know what "assigning gender" means.

Then we're into humpty dumpty linguistics territory, and I don't give a **** what it's supposed to mean today. Under any normal usage of language, it absolutely isn't what doctors do.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes, but people knowing your sex is generally not a problem. So why is it a problem here?

Whipping out you primary sex characteristics can get you into a bit of legal trouble, even in the West.
People generally don't know your sex; they infer it from your gender presentation.

Aren't sex and gender different?

Yes, they are.

I thought you couldn't change sex.

You can change sex. Though one cannot go from one end of the spectrum of sex all the way over to the other side.

 

[Belz...]

Whipping out you primary sex characteristics can get you into a bit of legal trouble, even in the West.

People generally don't know your sex; they infer it from your gender presentation.

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

Yes, they are.

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

You can change sex.

No you can't.