Non-binary identities are valid

[Emily's Cat]

You're sure about that?

Yes, I'm quite sure.

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.

I wasn't talking about legal status at all, which was abundantly clear from my post.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Your post here is so wrong I don't know where to start. I in no way at all suggested that intersex people don't exist. They do exist. But they do NOT exist as a sex that is different from male or female.

This is some fundamental biology, which carries through all mammals. Sex is determined by the type of gametes that a body produces (or would normally produce if fertile).

Primary sexual characteristics are reproductive organs: uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and vagina in females; testes and penis in males. In a very few intersex conditions, there is a mismatch with those primary characteristics, so you can end up with a person who has female reproductive organs but has testes where their ovaries would otherwise be, and similar. These are, however, very very rare. And they are still male, because they have the organs for producing small motile gametes.

Secondary sexual characteristics are those that are triggered by puberty. The onset of menses, breasts, widening of hips in females; descent of the testes and elongation of the penis, adams apple development, lowering voice, growth of facial hair and thickening of body hair, muscle density in males. Many intersex disorders cause changes in the development of those characteristics, producing slowed or delayed development, or malformations in some cases.

Tertiary sexual characteristics are innate from birth, and are bimodal differences between the sexes, including things like orbital shape, jaw and chin shape, brow ridge, height, hand and foot size, etc. These are not affected by intersex disorders.

Intersex isn't even the appropriate term - these are Disorders of Sexual Development, or DSDs. A person's sex is still binary: there are only two gametes among humans, mammals, and most vertebrates. Disorders of the development of sexual characteristics is just that - characteristics normally associated with a sex in a dimorphic species, which develop incorrectly in some fashion. But sex is still sex, and it is still only binary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Your definition is outdated.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

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

Poor wording on my part. The point is that these are disorders of sexual characteristics. They do not in any way constitute a sex other than male or female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

True, but that gets into an interesting question, as chimeras are actually two people in one. They contain genetic material of two (or more) distinct individuals. Chimerism isn't an intersex condition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Well, it does rather invalidate your condescending insinuation about someone else's inadvertent use of "he" as being "revealing", doesn't it now?

It might be worth consideration to contemplate being a bit more considerate and respectful toward other forum members, seeing as you yourself make the same mistakes that you so consistently denigrate other for making.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 . . .

I've always been of the opinion that Bowie qualified as bi... and most likely was simply famous and horny. Can't blame the guy for that

Interestingly, however, Bowie never expressed any inkling of feeling like he wasn't male. I don't think he was even remotely transgender.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Additionally, many paranoid schizophrenics do not hear voices at all, and even of those who do hear voices, they frequently aren't telling people to murder.

The whole shtick of "paranoid schizophrenics hear voices telling them to murder" is pretty much straight out of hollywood.

 

[d4m10n]

Intersex isn't even the appropriate term - these are Disorders of Sexual Development, or DSDs. A person's sex is still binary: there are only two gametes among humans, mammals, and most vertebrates. Disorders of the development of sexual characteristics is just that - characteristics normally associated with a sex in a dimorphic species, which develop incorrectly in some fashion.

Just for the sake of scoping the discussion, I think it's worth noting that even in a post-Gattaca sci-fi possible future wherein DSDs are wholly unknown, we'd still have people who don't identify as either men or women. The intersex issue is, once again, orthogonal to our discussion here.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Just for the sake of scoping the discussion, I think it's worth noting that even in a post-Gattaca sci-fi possible future wherein DSDs are wholly unknown, we'd still have people who don't identify as either men or women. The intersex issue is, once again, orthogonal to our discussion here.

Agreed. The tactic typically seems to be to say "well, you can't define male/female with no exceptions, therefore there are many sexes"


To be clear, I'm very much in favor of getting rid of sex-associated stereotypes - I'd be fine with everybody using some kind of agreed upon non-gendered pronoun. If we didn't have such associations, I would think there'd be fewer kids who want to call themselves non-binary. Unfortunately, much of this movement seems to me to want to double down on these stereotypes. I hope these kids know whether they can get pregnant or get somebody pregnant. It's worrisome when we have ACLU lawyers saying that sex is a societal construct...

 

[xjx388]

Agreed. The tactic typically seems to be to say "well, you can't define male/female with no exceptions, therefore there are many sexes"


To be clear, I'm very much in favor of getting rid of sex-associated stereotypes - I'd be fine with everybody using some kind of agreed upon non-gendered pronoun. If we didn't have such associations, I would think there'd be fewer kids who want to call themselves non-binary. Unfortunately, much of this movement seems to me to want to double down on these stereotypes. I hope these kids know whether they can get pregnant or get somebody pregnant. It's worrisome when we have ACLU lawyers saying that sex is a societal construct...

One of my big objections to the whole "non-binary" thing is that it wants to rewrite reality. Some stereotypes are rooted in reality. Men are bigger, stronger and more aggresive than women, in general. But I think we all understand that some women are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than some men. Some men are more emotional than some women.

I understand that "masculine" and "feminine" traits and roles are nothing more than socially determined constructs that change with the society. When my wife was going into Med School in mid 90's, there was still a lot of "a female doctor?!" attitude. There was still a lot of "a man who stays home and takes care of the kids?!" attitiude. But that has changed here pretty quickly, though it's not completely gone. I think there's still a lot of push back against female police officers, for example.

I can wrap my head around someone who thinks they are non-gendered -they don't identify with societal roles and traits of either gender. Ok. But what the hell does it mean to identify as a "third-gender?" What are the roles and traits our society would associate with this other gender? That I simply cannot wrap my head around and no amount of reading has helped me grok this concept.

 

[xjx388]

I've seen the hijra referenced as a "third sex." But as far as I can tell, these are basically people who have a ceremonial importance in Hindu beliefs. So not really a third sex, just a culturally specific gender role for men -there are no female hijra.

I've seen eunuchs cited as a "third sex." Again, these are just castrated men. They have a particular role (advisors to royalty, guardians of harems, etc) in a particular society. I can't see how that's a third sex, it's a role for one of the two sexes. There were no female eunuchs -the term makes no sense in that context.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your post here is so wrong I don't know where to start. I in no way at all suggested that intersex people don't exist. They do exist. But they do NOT exist as a sex that is different from male or female.

This is some fundamental biology, which carries through all mammals. Sex is determined by the type of gametes that a body produces (or would normally produce if fertile).

Primary sexual characteristics are reproductive organs: uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and vagina in females; testes and penis in males. In a very few intersex conditions, there is a mismatch with those primary characteristics, so you can end up with a person who has female reproductive organs but has testes where their ovaries would otherwise be, and similar. These are, however, very very rare. And they are still male, because they have the organs for producing small motile gametes.

Secondary sexual characteristics are those that are triggered by puberty. The onset of menses, breasts, widening of hips in females; descent of the testes and elongation of the penis, adams apple development, lowering voice, growth of facial hair and thickening of body hair, muscle density in males. Many intersex disorders cause changes in the development of those characteristics, producing slowed or delayed development, or malformations in some cases.

Tertiary sexual characteristics are innate from birth, and are bimodal differences between the sexes, including things like orbital shape, jaw and chin shape, brow ridge, height, hand and foot size, etc. These are not affected by intersex disorders.

Intersex isn't even the appropriate term - these are Disorders of Sexual Development, or DSDs. A person's sex is still binary: there are only two gametes among humans, mammals, and most vertebrates. Disorders of the development of sexual characteristics is just that - characteristics normally associated with a sex in a dimorphic species, which develop incorrectly in some fashion. But sex is still sex, and it is still only binary.

What?

First off, you didn't even attempt to address the first part of my post, which dealt with your bizarre claim that there was a link between intersex people and transgender identity.

And secondly, let's examine your goalpost-shifting record wrt intersex people.

In chronological order, you've stated:

1) "There is no in-between sex."

2) "Intersex people exist"

3) "I in no way at all suggested that intersex people don't exist. They do exist."

4) "Intersex isn't even the appropriate term"

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

For heaven's sake.

1) Nobody is making diagnoses here. I'm talking about drawing reasonable inferences. If, say, a friend of mine phoned me and earnestly said he kept hearing voices in his head telling him to kill women, I'd suggest (to myself) that this appeared to me to be a manifestation of paranoid schizophrenia. I wouldn't be diagnosing him as such. I'd suggest to him that he seek professional help. You're perfectly at liberty to state that what my friend told me in no way indicates that he might be afflicted by paranoid schizophrenia. But I'm arguing that you'd be wrong.


2) You've now somehow made the (il)logical leap to misrepresent my position to be "all non-binary people have the mental condition called gender dysphoria". Not only is that not my position, you were responding to my post which said (with direct reference to Sam Smith): "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."

So again, if a friend of mine phoned me and earnestly told me that they were fighting an "internal war" between their gender identity and their biological sex, I would draw the reasonable inference that it was likely my friend was experiencing gender dysphoria. And I'd suggest to my friend that they might benefit from professional help. Once again, you're perfectly at liberty to to state that what my friend told me in no way indicates that they might be experiencing gender dysphoria. But I'm arguing that you'd be wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, it does rather invalidate your condescending insinuation about someone else's inadvertent use of "he" as being "revealing", doesn't it now?

It might be worth consideration to contemplate being a bit more considerate and respectful toward other forum members, seeing as you yourself make the same mistakes that you so consistently denigrate other for making.

I'll post exactly as I wish to post, thanks. I neither need nor want your (condescending, ironically) "advice" on the matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

Additionally, many paranoid schizophrenics do not hear voices at all, and even of those who do hear voices, they frequently aren't telling people to murder.

The whole shtick of "paranoid schizophrenics hear voices telling them to murder" is pretty much straight out of hollywood.

If a friend of yours phoned you and earnestly stated that they were repeatedly hearing voices in their head telling them to kill people....

.... you're suggesting that it wouldn't be reasonable to infer that your friend might well be experiencing paranoid schizophrenia?

OK. But I disagree.

 

[Aber]

I can wrap my head around someone who thinks they are non-gendered -they don't identify with societal roles and traits of either gender. Ok. But what the hell does it mean to identify as a "third-gender?" What are the roles and traits our society would associate with this other gender? That I simply cannot wrap my head around and no amount of reading has helped me grok this concept.

From the DSM

an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

As I understand it, gender is being completely disassociated from biological reality, and gender dysphoria can mean that your body doesn't meet what your internal imagination believes as its gender identity (even if that is not a biological possibility).

 

[HansMustermann]

You know what's funny? None of us here really do.

Actually, you know, it's even funnier. Almost invariably in such conversations, activists who have no clue or first hand experience or actual stake in it actually feel a need to not just get offended on behalf of those who do, but tell those who do how they should feel about it.

Like, in another thread on the different topic of transsexuals, we actually had some guy try to tell actual trans-women in the thread how they should feel about sports being segregated by sex.

Or in this case, I'm getting the impression that I'm actually the only poster in this actual thread with an actual history of not particularly identifying as either male or female. Not as in "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who likes to identify as 'boop'", but actual first hand experience of being that guy. As I mentioned repeatedly before, I grew up being a 'girl' more than half the day, and a 'boy' the rest of the time, and possibly as a result, being either never was really particularly important for how I identify. I don't really identify as being either male or female, I just identify as me.

Yet people who have no further clue than wanting to bark together with the fashionable pack of activists have called me stuff like 'bigot' if my opinions on the matter don't align with theirs.

 

[HansMustermann]

That said, I'll just say it again: all this DSM and identity stuff and whatnot is really doing a motte and bailey fallacy on what is really demanded.

If the question is just what you want to identify as, then sure, knock yourself up... err... out. Whether it's male, female, other, cat, or even attack helicopter, go for it. I'll be the last person in the world to try to stop you or say there's anything wrong with it. Good for you, Mr Boeing AH-64 Apache.

The problem is more like, well, what seems to be the current fashionable plague of self-styled 'progressive' activism, particularly in the USA (or at least that's the impression I'm getting): expecting that everyone cares deeply and at a personal level about your problem, and puts it above any other problems. And gets it shoved in their face regularly, just so they don't forget. Whether it's about gender or race or being a vegan or even trivial stuff like Windows-vs-Apple, it's not just enough that people let you do whatever you want to do, they have to care deeply and personally about your cause. And if they don't, then verily it's the same as being persecuted.

But that strikes me as not being about rights or anything, it's just being a spoiled brat who never grew up.

The pronouns strike me as a case of just that. It's not just enough that people go "yeah, identify as whatever the fork you wish." Everyone has to remember that you specifically are the one they should refer to as "xi", the other one is "ae", and the other one is "boop". Someone merely not having had your problem shoved in their face often enough to hammer it in, is somehow insulting or bigoted.

Sorry, that's no long about the right to identify as X, it's about the right to shove your problem in everyone's face and demand that they care about it.

And, sorry, to quote Ron Swanson again, "The less I know about other people’s affairs, the happier I am. I’m not interested in caring about people."

Unlike him, I'm not even some right-wing libertarian. I'm a left wing statist. WAY left wing. If you have a problem, I'll happily pay even more tax so that a government agency deals with it in an efficient and uniform manner. So I don't have to. (And I already pay about half my income in taxes, so I fancy being willing to pay even more is substantial goodwill.)

Or if that's totally not enough, and it's such a terminal case that you absolutely can't live without some impossible condition (like every last one of us deeply and personally caring that you want a lollipop), I might even be willing to buy you a one way ticket to Switzerland out of my own pocket

 

[Distracted1]

That said, I'll just say it again: all this DSM and identity stuff and whatnot is really doing a motte and bailey fallacy on what is really demanded.

If the question is just what you want to identify as, then sure, knock yourself up... err... out. Whether it's male, female, other, cat, or even attack helicopter, go for it. I'll be the last person in the world to try to stop you or say there's anything wrong with it. Good for you, Mr Boeing AH-64 Apache.

The problem is more like, well, what seems to be the current fashionable plague of self-styled 'progressive' activism, particularly in the USA (or at least that's the impression I'm getting): expecting that everyone cares deeply and at a personal level about your problem, and puts it above any other problems. And gets it shoved in their face regularly, just so they don't forget. Whether it's about gender or race or being a vegan or even trivial stuff like Windows-vs-Apple, it's not just enough that people let you do whatever you want to do, they have to care deeply and personally about your cause. And if they don't, then verily it's the same as being persecuted.

But that strikes me as not being about rights or anything, it's just being a spoiled brat who never grew up.

The pronouns strike me as a case of just that. It's not just enough that people go "yeah, identify as whatever the fork you wish." Everyone has to remember that you specifically are the one they should refer to as "xi", the other one is "ae", and the other one is "boop". Someone merely not having had your problem shoved in their face often enough to hammer it in, is somehow insulting or bigoted.

Sorry, that's no long about the right to identify as X, it's about the right to shove your problem in everyone's face and demand that they care about it.

And, sorry, to quote Ron Swanson again, "The less I know about other people’s affairs, the happier I am. I’m not interested in caring about people."

Unlike him, I'm not even some right-wing libertarian. I'm a left wing statist. WAY left wing. If you have a problem, I'll happily pay even more tax so that a government agency deals with it in an efficient and uniform manner. So I don't have to. (And I already pay about half my income in taxes, so I fancy being willing to pay even more is substantial goodwill.)

Or if that's totally not enough, and it's such a terminal case that you absolutely can't live without some impossible condition (like every last one of us deeply and personally caring that you want a lollipop), I might even be willing to buy you a one way ticket to Switzerland out of my own pocket

I'll go you one further, I think the State should be heavily involved in the production and distribution of food. By the estimates of some I might as well be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. But, somehow, I am a "far-right' loon because I share your evaluation of the "Identity" topic.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'll go you one further, I think the State should be heavily involved in the production and distribution of food

To some extent, it already is, innit? Most of the western world heavily subsidizes agriculture, and thus the price of food for everyone. We also do stuff like give food coupons and the like to people who might otherwise not be able to afford it.

But yeah, more countries should do the same.