Non-binary identities are valid

[Emily's Cat]

Quite apart from the fact that there are people who are born with intersex characteristics.

Again, intersex disorders affect the development of sexual characteristics, but they do not alter a person's sex. A person with an intersex condition is still only either male or female.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please see post #561.

Yes. I saw it. And I'd seen it in the British media anyhow. But it makes no difference to my point. You weren't talking about Sam Smith being omitted from gendered categories at the Brit Awards (which is what that news from last week was specifically about). You were talking about Sam Smith coming out as having a nonbinary gender identity. Which he announced in March 2019.

You do know that unqualified skeptics should generally refrain from armchair psychiatry, don't you? (I'm not the one attributing diagnoses here.)

Yes. You're at total liberty, should you so wish, to decide that Sam Smith's quoted statements about experiencing an internal "war" between his sex and his gender identity in no way indicate gender dysphoria. Oh, and nobody is "diagnosing" gender dysphoria wrt Smith (though, again, it's very interesting and informative that you chose to use that word).

Do they? The first three criteria are about "primary and/or secondary sex characteristics" and there I've seen no reason given why we should expect non-binary persons to want to modify what they have. Have you read some research on point?

Continued misunderstanding on your part, I'm afraid. The criteria you're discussing here have nothing whatsoever to do with people wishing to "modify" their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. In fact, they are entirely to do with internalised conflict between a) one's experience of gender and b) one's sex characteristics. For example, if I (a male) was to experience a gender identity (whether "woman" or nonbinary) which did not correlate to my sex characteristics (eg the fact that I have a penis and scrotum, no breasts, body and facial hair).

Have you given us some reason to believe non-binary persons typically come to this identity as the result of counselling and psychotherapy?

Huh? I've never claimed anything of the sort. I'm saying that if, to take me as an example again, I had for many years identified as nonbinary but I was having trouble reconciling that with the fact that I have a penis, facial hair etc, and with the fact that there was a high degree of societal expectation that I should present as a man...... I might well seek out specialist counselling/therapy to help me come to terms with my condition.


Anyhow. It's late and I'm also pretty tired of stating the obvious in the face of continuing misunderstanding, misrepresentation and potential discrimination and denial. So, good night.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again, intersex disorders affect the development of sexual characteristics, but they do not alter a person's sex. A person with an intersex condition is still only either male or female.

You're sure about that?

And NB we're not talking about legal status here (since legislation all over the world only recognises "male" and "female" as the two exclusive options for biological sex). We're talking about medical and psychological status & recognition.

 

[LondonJohn]

Intersex people exist, but they are not a different or a mixed sex. Each intersex person is either male or female.

Intersex conditions create malformations or prevent the formation of sexual characteristics. In the vast majority of cases, intersex conditions have no outward physical affects, and are merely a matter of chromosomal abnormalities. In some intersex cases, secondary sexual characteristics fail to develop along normal lines - females don't grow breasts, male testes don't descend, puberty is delayed or absent. In some cases, intersex conditions present as partially formed or ambiguous genitalia.

But each individual is still only either male or female.

This has come up repeatedly, but I think it bears reiteration: The vast majority of people with intersex conditions are NOT transgender. And the vast majority of transgender people do NOT have an intersex condition. Intersex conditions affect the development of sexual characteristics, but do not create a third sex, nor do they result in a mixed sex.

I'm far from confident that anyone (and certainly not I) has proposed any link between intersex people and transgender identity - in recent memory at least.

The issue was solely around whether there is any such thing as intersex people. You stated that there was not. I and others stated that there is. That was all it was about.

 

[Matthew Best]

Oh, and perhaps you meant to write they rather than he in your post, as I've highlighted. But whether or not it was purely unintentional on your part, it's rather revealing nevertheless...

I’d be interested to know what exactly it reveals, because in the third paragraph of your post #822 you referred to Smith as “he” rather than “they”.

 

[d4m10n]

You were talking about Sam Smith coming out as having a nonbinary gender identity. Which he announced in March 2019.

A few pages back, we'd been talking about what happens when gendered or sexed categories of competition (e.g. best female vocalist) are found bumping up against public declarations of non-binariness. This has been in the news fairly recently, as you now know.

You're at total liberty, should you so wish, to decide that Sam Smith's quoted statements about experiencing an internal "war" between his sex and his gender identity in no way indicate gender dysphoria.

Just as I'm free to believe that Sam is mistaken when they say "I'm not male or female. I think I float somewhere in between.” As it turns out, Sam is actually male. People are fallible, even when doing autobiography.

I might well seek out specialist counselling/therapy to help me come to terms with my condition.

It may well be that non-binary identified persons typically come to that conclusion as a result of counselling/therapy but if that is not actually true then it seems a bit forced to drag the DSM into this discussion as if we're talking about psychiatry here. Has anyone yet shown the italicized claim to be true?

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, intersex disorders affect the development of sexual characteristics, but they do not alter a person's sex. A person with an intersex condition is still only either male or female.

No. Your definition is outdated. It is neither a disorder nor a malformation.

According to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies. Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of natural bodily variations. In some cases, intersex traits are visible at birth while in others, they are not apparent until puberty. Some chromosomal intersex variations may not be physically apparent at all.[2]​

According to World Health Organization: Intersex is defined as a congenital anomaly of the reproductive and sexual system. An estimate about the birth prevalence of intersex is difficult to make because there are no concrete parameters to the definition of intersex.

In biological terms, sex may be determined by a number of factors present at birth, including:[33]

• Number and type of sex chromosomes,
• Type of gonads—ovaries or testicles,
• Sex hormone levels,
• Internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and
• External genitalia.
• People whose characteristics are not either all typically male or all typically female at birth are intersex.[34]

Some intersex traits are not always visible at birth; some babies may be born with ambiguous genitals, while others may have ambiguous internal organs (testes and ovaries). Others will not become aware that they are intersex unless they receive genetic testing, because it does not manifest in their phenotype.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Definitions

I recommend going to the Wikipedia page and following some of the links.

 

[xjx388]

Yet another thread where skeptics feel perfectly confident in evoking the DSM as if they were mental health professionals...

And not only that, applying diagnostic labels to people that 1)they have never met and 2)are in no position to diagnose even if they had met them.

We can discuss the social issues without dragging in medical speculation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Intersex people exist, but they are not a different or a mixed sex. Each intersex person is either male or female.

Chimeras can be an exception to that, but as with true intersex conditions, such cases have basically nothing to do with the public debate about the issue.

 

[mgidm86]

I’d be interested to know what exactly it reveals, because in the third paragraph of your post #822 you referred to Smith as “he” rather than “they”.

Something about glass houses...

 

[Aber]

And NB we're not talking about legal status here (since legislation all over the world only recognises "male" and "female" as the two exclusive options for biological sex).

Nope.

The gender on your passport can be:

M (male)
F (female)
X (gender diverse).

If you have had multiple gender or name changes, and you have previously travelled to a country under different details, you may encounter delays at border controls. It may also affect your ability to confirm your identity.

The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) recommends you carefully consider these implications before changing your gender details in your passport.

Where there has been more than one change in gender identity, you need to submit your previous passport with your passport application. Your previous passport will be cancelled and returned to you. DIA reserves the right to request the return of your passport or travel document at any time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope.

Ah well this is a mishmash. And the key thing is that it refers explicitly to gender, rather than to biological sex (but then confuses the issue by using "male" and "female" as gender identifiers...).

But it's very good to see at least some progress being made in recognition of nonbinary gender identity.

 

[LondonJohn]

I’d be interested to know what exactly it reveals, because in the third paragraph of your post #822 you referred to Smith as “he” rather than “they”.

Ah yes, one single slip in a post full of "they/them" references to Smith. So it's abundantly clear that I respect Smith's nonbinary gender identity.

I congratulate you though for your doggedness in doing a search to find out if I'd ever used "he" or "him" in reference to Smith

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet another thread where skeptics feel perfectly confident in evoking the DSM as if they were mental health professionals...

And not only that, applying diagnostic labels to people that 1)they have never met and 2)are in no position to diagnose even if they had met them.

We can discuss the social issues without dragging in medical speculation.

Oh jeez.

If you read someone state, more than once and explicitly, that they hear voices in their heads telling them to kill women, it's perfectly reasonable to draw a speculative inference (not "make a diagnosis") that the person is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. And it's patently ridiculous to suggest that this is in any way improper or "unsceptical" and so on.

Likewise, if someone states, more than once and explicitly, that they've long battled an "internal war" between their gender identity and their biological sex, it's perfectly reasonable to draw a speculative inference (not "make a diagnosis") that the person has experienced gender dysphoria.

This whole "unless you're a qualified medical professional who has consulted personally with the person, you're disallowed from making a diagnosis drawing a reasonable inference about whether or not they may have experienced a certain mental health condition" is arrant nonsense.

 

[xjx388]

You know not of what you speak.

You know what's funny? None of us here really do. We are speculating. What I do know is that the mere presence of non-binary feelings does not indicate a medical condition.

(And FWIW, Bowie never stated that he was transgender (in the sense which clinicians and lawmakers today would recognise).

That wasn't a big term in the 60's and 70's public consciousness when he was actively putting on performance personas. He did state he was gay . . . but then said he was always a closet heterosexual. Maybe he was bi? Who knows because, as you say . . .

Rather, he was a performance artist who aimed to shake up public perceptions of gender identity, sexuality and visual presentation through his many personas and his many related statements. It's an entirely different situation to that of, for example, Sam Smith)

I agree that Sam Smith isn't putting on a performance. Which is what makes David Bowie a bad example of androgynism.

 

[xjx388]

Oh jeez.

If you read someone state, more than once and explicitly, that they hear voices in their heads telling them to kill women, it's perfectly reasonable to draw a speculative inference (not "make a diagnosis") that the person is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. And it's patently ridiculous to suggest that this is in any way improper or "unsceptical" and so on.

Likewise, if someone states, more than once and explicitly, that they've long battled an "internal war" between their gender identity and their biological sex, it's perfectly reasonable to draw a speculative inference (not "make a diagnosis") that the person has experienced gender dysphoria.

This whole "unless you're a qualified medical professional who has consulted personally with the person, you're disallowed from making a diagnosis drawing a reasonable inference about whether or not they may have experienced a certain mental health condition" is arrant nonsense.

How does anyone know if the inference is reasonable? For example, is hearing voices and murdering always due to paranoid schizophrenia? Do people with paranoid schizophrenia always end up murdering people? No to both. It's a "just-so story," that explains everything without having to think about things. It's also stigmatizing to the people who actually have a mental illness like paranoid schizophrenia.

To say that all non-binary people have the mental condition called gender dysphoria is one of those just-so stories.

 

[Matthew Best]

Ah yes, one single slip in a post full of "they/them" references to Smith. So it's abundantly clear that I respect Smith's nonbinary gender identity.

I congratulate you though for your doggedness in doing a search to find out if I'd ever used "he" or "him" in reference to Smith

I didn't need to do a search - you've referred to Smith as "him" repeatedly.

But whether or not it was purely unintentional on your part, it's rather revealing nevertheless...

 

[Louden Wilde]

No. Your definition is outdated. It is neither a disorder nor a malformation.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Definitions

I recommend going to the Wikipedia page and following some of the links.

She's right (note I went into my background on this here). Sex is fundamentally about reproduction (& no, karyotypes are not sexes).

In mammals, reproduction is an obligatory binary: fusion of one oocyte and one sperm is required for normal development. Unless you are creationist, this is the only definition that works (i.e. in a comparative/evolutionary context).

If folks with DSDs/VSDs are fertile (they usually have at least reduced fertility), it's because they make either sperm or oocytes - & if not, they are literally not relevant to a definition. That being said, it's almost always clear which pathway (i.e. female or male) got disrupted during development.

I see two other points in these arguments that are either ignorant or disingenuous- the first is lumping together DSDs as if they are one thing. One of the most common DSDs is Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) - which is a DSD only in females (virilized genitalia - e.g. enlarged clitoris) and may be life threatening (as it's caused by mutations in an enzyme that is involved in hormone production, salt regulation may be affected). A woman with CAH has little in common with an XXY male (where symptoms may be subtle, though they are also susceptible to other health conditions).

A nice (short) bit on this by a fellow developmental geneticist (Emma Hilton) here.

The other point is that I see no evidence of DSDs having anything to do with people declaring themselves non-binary or trans. As Emma put it:
People with DSDs have complex and often traumatic medical histories, perhaps struggling to understand their bodies, and they deserve more respect than to be casually and thoughtlessly used as a postmodernist “gotcha” by the very people so horribly triggered by a pronoun.

 

[Aber]

Likewise, if someone states, more than once and explicitly, that they've long battled an "internal war" between their gender identity and their biological sex, it's perfectly reasonable to draw a speculative inference (not "make a diagnosis") that the person has experienced gender dysphoria.

When they also reveal that this first manifested itself as "boob envy" it gets more complicated.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Continuing on from my post yesterday, I wonder if going back to Old/Middle English could actually provide an answer? That had "hit" as a gender-neutral pronoun. Essentially "it" with an "h" in front. The "h" could serve as the bridge to "he" and "she", and people are already familiar with how "it" works in the language.

Yes, there already is the word "hit" in the language, but there are many homonyms and homographs in the language already, and context should work for this to alleviate any ambiguity.

So you could have:

Hit is eating an apple.
The apple is hits.
The apple belongs to hit.
I gave hit an apple.

Then again, I suppose some British accents could see that just becoming "it" again, which runs into the same problems as before. I could see maybe a different letter to make something like "dit", but then that runs into the problem of again being disconnected from "he" and "she". You obviously can't stick an s in front of the h.

I'll say it again, I don't think there's an easy solution, but I do think that there should be a better solution than the one that's currently taking hold.

I don't think that "hit" would ever gain much traction. For multiple reasons, not there least of them is can you imagine the likely outcomes if a school kid told the class to refer to them as "hit?" But I definitely think there is a fair about of difficulty in writing and saying "they," for a singular person and conveying what is meant by it, and hope that a better term will need chosen.

There is enough pressure from being non binary that ideally more time could be devoted around the identity of being non binary rather than discussing the confusing contradictory grammer surrounding it. Hopefully enough people will choose a better term for non binary pronouns, and there will be enough pressure for better terminology.

I remember when I first heard someone talk about someone else as a singular person with a multiple person pronoun, and I thought they were trying to gently imply that the person had schizophrenic multiple personalities.

Me: how are you doing, how has your family been?
Friend: great, my daughter got in to [some great college], and they are going there in the fall.
Me: that is great, you must be very proud. You said they, did you have multiple children going to the same college? That is great that they can be together.
Friend: no just my daughter.
Me: ummm, I apologize you said your daughter, but you referred to them as multiple people.
Friend: oh, they just identify as they.
Me: (I am not sure if his daughter has multiple personalities, and they have just started calling her "they" since they might not be sure which personality that they would be dealing with)
Me: ahh OK, well you must be very proud of them.


I mean with all of the work to get people to acknowledge non binary people, it is unlikely that the appropriation of "they" as a singular pronoun instead of plural will be replaced by something that makes more functional and grammatical sense. It will always continue to be a challenge since the use goes against basic grammer and logic, but there has been so much work to get enough people to accept it that it would be difficult to change to a term that is better defined and easier to use. There will definitely be a lot of continuous confusion for a long time because of it though.

I am sure they will people who will not accept the use of the plural pronoun "they" to refer to a singular person, not because they don't support someone being non binary, but because it logically does not make sense. The biggest problem with that is that the less people that use the preferred pronouns, the harder it will be for non binary people to gain normal social acceptance. Since the grammar contradictions around the chosen phrase of "they" as both a singular and plural pronoun are so difficult, those that chose that terminology made it much harder for non binary people as a whole.

Ideally, I would have preferred the pronouns "Ne" and "Nim" as short for neutral or gender neutral.