Non-binary identities are valid

[Emily's Cat]

I think it'd be interesting to see a hypothetical human society that thought of race as something as fluid or internal as gender or sexuality. I'd read that novel.

I think it's reasonable to say that race is far, far more fluid than sex is. The genes that effect skin tone are, I believe, codominant. Offspring generally end up with skin tones somewhere on an actual spectrum between those of their parents. Most of the characteristics associated with racial phenotypes are "mixable", or at the very minimum, children end up with a blend of those characteristics from their parents.

Sex, on the other hand, is binary. Humans are either male or female. They cannot be both, and there is no in-between sex. Secondary sex characteristics (those triggered by puberty) are dimorphic. Each exhibits a range of size and shape, but there isn't an "in between" for female hip openings, or for male genital length. They are still male or female characteristics. Tertiary characteristics are more bimodal, and can exhibit overlap between the sexes, although they have different distributions by sex.

Gender is the set of social roles and expectations associated with sex. Femininity and Masculinity exist along spectra, but there is also no actual biological foundation for those social categories, unlike sex and race.

Gender as it has been understood up until the recent attempt to redefine it is not internal. Gender is a judgment made by other people as to how well you do or do not fit within the socially defined buckets of gender roles and expectations. It is other people's determination of how feminine or masculine you are. Any person can take steps to try to influence the perception of other people and present themselves as more feminine or more masculine, but at the end of the day, that determination is made by other people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It appears that you're unfamiliar with the concept of gender dysphoria. It's got nothing whatsoever per se to do with one's biological sex, one's name, one's clothing preferences or one's sexual orientation (although it can often partially manifest itself through any/all but the first of those categories).

It absolutely has to do with biological sex. Without biological sex, gender dysphoria doesn't even exist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Sam" actually is one of the most gender ambiguous common names we have.

I dunno, I would have gone with "Pat", although "Alex" comes up in a solid third place regardless.

 

[LondonJohn]

It absolutely has to do with biological sex. Without biological sex, gender dysphoria doesn't even exist.

You might have missed the two words "per se". Those words explain everything properly.

 

[Distracted1]

But, but, but... that's different! It would be unconscionable for a privileged person (a white man) to appropriate the experiences of an oppressed class (black men) for their feelings! But women are totally the oppressors, so it's punching up, really, and no big deal. Right?

Well, humor aside, that is what is interesting to me about the idea.
The two things seem to parallel each other so well, that I can't see the daylight between insisting that a person's racial identity be recognized as whatever they claim it to be- and that a persons gender be recognized as whatever they claim it to be.

It seems logical that one who would support the official recognition of one would also support the official recognition of the other.
If there is someone here who would not, their argument for why not would be enlightening.

 

[LondonJohn]

Which of the diagnostic criteria would you expect apply to someone like Sam Smith, given his own self-assessment? I'm guessing maybe the last three?

The first one and the last three. Clearly.

I'm not sure whether you're implying that Sam Smith is somehow a "special case" in the set of people with gender dysphoria (though it certainly appears that you are). But he most certainly is not.

 

[LondonJohn]

But, but, but... that's different! It would be unconscionable for a privileged person (a white man) to appropriate the experiences of an oppressed class (black men) for their feelings! But women are totally the oppressors, so it's punching up, really, and no big deal. Right?

What the heck is it with this CONSTANT rant (erm, focus) on women, when it comes to discussion/debate about gender dysphoria and gender identity? You consistently appear to be either unaware or disregarding of the blatant fact that it's just as possible (and probably almost as common) for females to identify as men - or as nonbinary - as it is for males to identify as women or nonbinary.

Drop the "extreme jeopardy for all females" schtick for just one moment, please. That is, after all, a) just one narrow factor related to transgender identity (communal gender-based changing rooms and gender-based safe spaces) b) as yet unquantified, and c) very likely indeed to be either mitigated or legislated if it turns out to be a worrying factor. Transgender identity, including nonbinary transidentity is about much, much more than that.

(I mean I make that plea, but I suspect that it will not only fall on deaf ears, but will probably result in a fresh diatribe...)

 

[Emily's Cat]

After all, is it possible to measure or calibrate "objective evidence" to indicate homosexuality*?

...

* that is to say, as a valid mental health condition (as opposed to outcomes - for example engaging in gay sex...)

That's a strange question. You're excluding the actual element of being sexually active with people of ones own sex, from consideration for homosexuality? That's simply bizarre.

But beyond that, we can actually measure sexual arousal and correlate it with the sex of the object of that arousal. We actually know the part of the brain that manages sexual attraction, and we know that it varies between whether one is attracted to females or to males.

Besides that, you're playing games again. You're asking for objective criteria of homosexuality as a mental health condition, which it is not. Presumably your intention is to then leverage this as an argument for gender dysphoria not being a mental health condition. You're comparing apples to golf balls.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, humor aside, that is what is interesting to me about the idea.
The two things seem to parallel each other so well, that I can't see the daylight between insisting that a person's racial identity be recognized as whatever they claim it to be- and that a persons gender be recognized as whatever they claim it to be.

It seems logical that one who would support the official recognition of one would also support the official recognition of the other.
If there is someone here who would not, their argument for why not would be enlightening.

There's a fundamental difference, but this is nothing whatsoever to do with the title of this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a strange question. You're excluding the actual element of being sexually active with people of ones own sex, from consideration for homosexuality? That's simply bizarre.

But beyond that, we can actually measure sexual arousal and correlate it with the sex of the object of that arousal. We actually know the part of the brain that manages sexual attraction, and we know that it varies between whether one is attracted to females or to males.

Besides that, you're playing games again. You're asking for objective criteria of homosexuality as a mental health condition, which it is not. Presumably your intention is to then leverage this as an argument for gender dysphoria not being a mental health condition. You're comparing apples to golf balls.

What?

Homosexuality is a mental health condition.

Gender dysphoria is a mental health condition.

There's only one position which is playing games in this particular dialogue.


(Or are you confusing "mental health condition" with "mental health disorder" perhaps?)

 

[Emily's Cat]

A quip is generally understood to be lighthearted. Your comment was definitely not that. You were angry that the word slavery was used, without taking any time to consider the context, which you completely misunderstood. So yes, a short rant, but a rant just the same.

No, I wasn't angry. My first comment was:

In this thread using the 'wrong' pronouns is tantamount to slavery.

From this, you claimed that I was "triggered". I responded with:

I'm not triggered. But I am incredibly tired of the ridiculous assertions of everything being tantamount to slavery. Yes, you had farting in there too... but still there's no rational reason to bring slavery into this discussion in any way.

I'm still not angry. I'm annoyed and tired of it. Slavery gets used a lot, nazis get used a lot, things tend to get way exaggerated, as if by somehow making them more dramatic and more extreme than they actually are, people can be shamed into rejecting reason and responding in a purely emotional fashion.

It's annoying. But I'm neither angry nor triggered.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You might have missed the two words "per se". Those words explain everything properly.

They do not change the factually inaccurate nature of your quote.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I wasn't angry. My first comment was:


From this, you claimed that I was "triggered". I responded with:


I'm still not angry. I'm annoyed and tired of it. Slavery gets used a lot, nazis get used a lot, things tend to get way exaggerated, as if by somehow making them more dramatic and more extreme than they actually are, people can be shamed into rejecting reason and responding in a purely emotional fashion.

It's annoying. But I'm neither angry nor triggered.

Slavery and Nazis get used a lot in discussions around gender identity (or, more specifically, wrt the OP of this thread, nonbinary identity)......?



(Sure sounds like triggering to me)

 

[Upchurch]

Gender is the set of social roles and expectations that are often, but not always, associated with sex.

FIFY

 

[LondonJohn]

They do not change the factually inaccurate nature of your quote.

They do, but I accept you might not understand that.

My use of the words "per se" convey my (correct) contention that gender identity has nothing intrinsically to do with biological sex. That is to say, there is no linkage or necessary correlation between the two. Which is..... true.

Oh well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What the heck is it with this CONSTANT rant (erm, focus) on women, when it comes to discussion/debate about gender dysphoria and gender identity? You consistently appear to be either unaware or disregarding of the blatant fact that it's just as possible (and probably almost as common) for females to identify as men - or as nonbinary - as it is for males to identify as women or nonbinary.

Drop the "extreme jeopardy for all females" schtick for just one moment, please. That is, after all, a) just one narrow factor related to transgender identity (communal gender-based changing rooms and gender-based safe spaces) b) as yet unquantified, and c) very likely indeed to be either mitigated or legislated if it turns out to be a worrying factor. Transgender identity, including nonbinary transidentity is about much, much more than that.

(I mean I make that plea, but I suspect that it will not only fall on deaf ears, but will probably result in a fresh diatribe...)

It comes up because women are the ones harmed by this ideology. Men are not harmed, nor are they put at increased risk. Putting biologically female prisoners in the male ward does NOT increase the risk of those males being raped by the female. It is NOT an identical situation in reverse.

And you repeatedly play this "oh, well it won't be a big deal, it won't happen, and if it does then we'll deal with it then" game on this topic. But when you are presented with actual real situations where the harm has already happened, where damage is already done... you go silent for a few days and ignore it. As if by not answering you somehow manage to convince yourself and everyone else that it doesn't exist and you've never been presented with the cases.

The fact is that female prisoners ARE being raped by transgender prisoners who identify as women but are genitally intact. It has happened repeatedly.

The fact is that female athletes are being displaced by male athletes who identify as girls. It has happened repeatedly.

The fact is that males who identify as women have gained access to rape shelters by claiming womanhood, and then proceeded to leer at, masturbate over, and sexually harass the female victims who are sheltering there.

All of these things have already happened - and they all continue to happen.

So I will ask you again the question that you repeatedly ignore:

How much injury and harm should females be expected to endure in order to affirm the feelings of males? How much is too much, in your view?

 

[LondonJohn]

FIFY

Correct.

I have to say, I find it interesting (to say the least) that vociferous participation in a debate about a particular topic does not appear to be a reliable indicator of even a basic understanding of terms framing that debate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What?

Homosexuality is a mental health condition.

Gender dysphoria is a mental health condition.

There's only one position which is playing games in this particular dialogue.


(Or are you confusing "mental health condition" with "mental health disorder" perhaps?)

In what way is homosexuality a mental health condition? How do you define "mental health condition"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

FIFY

In what scenarios is gender NOT associated with social expectations and roles pertaining to biological sex?

 

[LondonJohn]

It comes up because women are the ones harmed by this ideology. Men are not harmed, nor are they put at increased risk. Putting biologically female prisoners in the male ward does NOT increase the risk of those males being raped by the female. It is NOT an identical situation in reverse.

And you repeatedly play this "oh, well it won't be a big deal, it won't happen, and if it does then we'll deal with it then" game on this topic. But when you are presented with actual real situations where the harm has already happened, where damage is already done... you go silent for a few days and ignore it. As if by not answering you somehow manage to convince yourself and everyone else that it doesn't exist and you've never been presented with the cases.

The fact is that female prisoners ARE being raped by transgender prisoners who identify as women but are genitally intact. It has happened repeatedly.

The fact is that female athletes are being displaced by male athletes who identify as girls. It has happened repeatedly.

The fact is that males who identify as women have gained access to rape shelters by claiming womanhood, and then proceeded to leer at, masturbate over, and sexually harass the female victims who are sheltering there.

All of these things have already happened - and they all continue to happen.

So I will ask you again the question that you repeatedly ignore:

How much injury and harm should females be expected to endure in order to affirm the feelings of males? How much is too much, in your view?

Ah the good old laundry list of terms from the radical-proto-feminist playbook (or should I say website?). Excellent! And just as expected.

In answer to your question, I'll answer you in even shoutier terms:

One is too many.

But....

One death on the roads is too many. One instance of spousal physical abuse is too many. One football-related case of pre-senile dementia is too many. One death in a commercial airline crash is too many. One premature death from chronic alcoholism is too many. One child death in a swimming pool accident is too many. One death of a woman in childbirth is too many. One physical attack on a late-night convenience store till operator is too many. One premature death from undiagnosed bowel cancer is too many. One assault on a serving police officer is too many. One........................

Does that aid your understanding in any manner?


(And nice touch with the "to affirm the feelings of males" stuff. I'd say it tells me all I need to know about your position, but I already knew it with crystal clarity anyhow)