Non-binary identities are valid

[xjx388]

There's only disagreement because some people want there to be a "correct" pronoun. There is no "correct" pronoun, there is only the pronoun that somebody wants you to use.

But there are correct pronouns. He/she/they. Pick one of those.

So let's poke this analogy further. Standard titles (which are inherently sexist, by the way) hold that you call someone Miss if they are unmarried and Mrs if they are married. If a Miss gets married, you now refer to them as Mrs. And (in the standard heteronormative patriarchal paradigm) she will frequently change her surname. There's no question about which title to use. Except that now she wants you to call her Ms. as she does not feel that whether she is married or not is relevant. And you do so. You don't quibble over what Ms refers to. You just use it because she asked you to.

ETA: And there were people who objected to Ms. too. They seem at best quaint and old-fashioned now.

But the use of an honorific is based on very different things than gender. Most people can wrap their heads around the concept. Women wanted to be identified as women in their own right without the sexist connotations that being connected to a man would entail. Perfectly understandable, even if some people wanted to hang on to the old patriarchical system.

 

[HansMustermann]

So let's poke this analogy further. Standard titles (which are inherently sexist, by the way) hold that you call someone Miss if they are unmarried and Mrs if they are married. If a Miss gets married, you now refer to them as Mrs. And (in the standard heteronormative patriarchal paradigm) she will frequently change her surname. There's no question about which title to use. Except that now she wants you to call her Ms. as she does not feel that whether she is married or not is relevant. And you do so. You don't quibble over what Ms refers to. You just use it because she asked you to.

Yes, let's. Because I also happen to know that nobody normal actually thinks it's painful or bigoted or anything if they've been called by the wrong title.

One of mom's stories is how a couple of classmates decided to call her Miss Mustermann (or rather the local i18n version of it) after she got married in college. That is the combination of Miss and the family name she got from her husband. She just found it funny.

Or I've been misgendered before. The last time actually on work chat. In fact, he actually distorted my name into a girl name. Couldn't care less.

As I was saying, it seems to me like those demanding that I treat it as 100% certainty and perfectly logical, or it's painful for them, are just telling me that they don't seem to be that certain themselves. If everyone has to walk on eggshells around it, lest it starts feeling painful, that uncomfortable sensation is just what cognitive dissonance feels. And it means it's actually a very wobbly and unsupported part of their mental model.

Seriously, if you have something that you either feel perfectly justified to believe (e.g., I'm a programmer because that's by definition what me being employed to write programs means) or that you don't feel like it needs any particular justification (e.g., I like burgundy, as in, the #800020 colour) you don't need everyone else to validate it. Meaning you have no reason to be triggered by it if someone doesn't. If someone says "no, you don't actually like burgundy", then they're just crazy. They have no way to know what's actually in your head. So why would you care?

So, anyway, far from me to tell them that they can't still go for that mental model, BUT -- and this is a big fat BUT -- if they're not all that sure themselves that it's not just some counter-factual belief, then why is it an obligation for everyone else to act as if it's absolute truth? Doesn't it boil down to a bit of hypocrisy?

 

[theprestige]

https://twitter.com/cy_chedelic/status/1374062388530581511

https://twitter.com/urfriendimane/status/1374092724492771336

https://twitter.com/orbitbmi/status/1374274868858994688

... and I don't owe them a non-binary gender identity. It really shouldn't be rocket surgery.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, here I'll have to disagree. YOUR ID is just that, yours. Psychology is already BS enough without making a third of your psychology be in someone else's head : p

A more relevant question IMHO is whether what's in your head actually constitutes any obligation for anyone else.

My position is that the validity of your ID only comes into play where it meets the perceptions of others. It's not actually your psychology that makes the decision, it's theirs.

The relevant question - the only question - is whether what's in your head entitles you to all three thirds of someone else's psychology.

 

[theprestige]

You don't keep your allies when you act like that.

Over the last few years, from time to time I'll see a screed to the effect that this is an entitled attitude, and so-called "allies" need to STFU and do what they're told for a change.

 

[HansMustermann]

My position is that the validity of your ID only comes into play where it meets the perceptions of others. It's not actually your psychology that makes the decision, it's theirs.

The relevant question - the only question - is whether what's in your head entitles you to all three thirds of someone else's psychology.

Probably a better way to put the question, but yes, basically that's what I was getting at.

 

[d4m10n]

... and I don't owe them a non-binary gender identity.

I'm not sure if that is true, right now, in parts of Europe. Saw the phrase "accused of gendering a non-binary person" in print a couple years back, the implication was that the accusation might reasonably carry social or organizational sanctions.

Come to think of it, plenty of North American Human Resources experts would probably tell you right now that using the wrong pronouns for your co-workers creates a hostile work environment.

 

[caveman1917]

we can stop forcing them to use the wrong pronouns.

Typical of the narcissistic mindset of this pseudo-progressive movement.

Note how nobody has said that transgender people should be forced to use any pronouns for themselves they don't want. It's only one side that's arguing that some people should be forced to use some particular pronoun for some particular people, and when other people refuse to obey said demand you frame it as you being "forced" to use the wrong pronouns. Framing a refusal to obey a command as persecution says all that needs to be said.

 

[LondonJohn]

Non-binary IDs are valid. If you can pull off androgyny, go for it. But ultimately, gender ID is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter how neither-male-nor-female you identify yourself as, if you still register as male to others, that's your actual valid gender identity.

This is different from dress and behavior variations such as "tomboy" or "effeminate" (most of which are part of the binary ID system anyway).

This is total nonsense. Gender identity is a condition which is internalised to the person concerned. It's categorically nothing to do solely with what others think about the person, based on their appearance/mannerisms/etc.

Just as a thought exercise, the singer Sam Smith is a male who identifies as non-binary. How on earth does the way in which Smith presents themselves via dress/mannerisms/etc act as the necessary indicator of their gender identity? After all, they dress and present essentially as the "man" gender. By your reckoning, since Smith presents as "man" to others, this therefore means that "man" must be Smith's actual valid gender identity.

So in fact, you're denying the validity of (true) gender identity with your bizarre misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what gender identity actually is.

 

[theprestige]

Or I've been misgendered before. The last time actually on work chat. In fact, he actually distorted my name into a girl name. Couldn't care less.

I think this is a legit "check your privilege" scenario. It's easy to shrug off the occasional misgendering when you're not experiencing any distress about your gender self-ID, and you don't have to deal with misgendering issues all day every day.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not sure if that is true, right now, in parts of Europe. Saw the phrase "accused of gendering a non-binary person" in print a couple years back, the implication was that the accusation might reasonably carry social or organizational sanctions.

Come to think of it, plenty of North American Human Resources experts would probably tell you right now that using the wrong pronouns for your co-workers creates a hostile work environment.

And quite right too - provided that a) there was reasonable evidence that the person concerned had previously been made aware of the other person's gender identity, and b) there was reasonable evidence that the misgendering had been deliberate (as opposed to a genuine absent-minded slip-up).

 

[LondonJohn]

But the use of an honorific is based on very different things than gender. Most people can wrap their heads around the concept. Women wanted to be identified as women in their own right without the sexist connotations that being connected to a man would entail. Perfectly understandable, even if some people wanted to hang on to the old patriarchical system.

You can't see the inherent paradox in your position here?

On the one hand, you're stating that 1) it was correct that married women might, for the first time, want to be identified in their own right rather than the former protocol which dictated that they were property of their husband; 2) most people could wrap their heads around the concept; and 3) there would unfortunately still be some people who wanted to hang on to the old patriarchal system.


Well..... now replace "married women" with "people with non-binary gender identity";

replace "the former protocol which dictated that they were the property of their husband" with "the former protocol which dictated that they were necessarily either man or woman";

and keep the rest exactly as written.

 

[theprestige]

You can't see the inherent paradox in your position here?

On the one hand, you're stating that 1) it was correct that married women might, for the first time, want to be identified in their own right rather than the former protocol which dictated that they were property of their husband; 2) most people could wrap their heads around the concept; and 3) there would unfortunately still be some people who wanted to hang on to the old patriarchal system.


Well..... now replace "married women" with "people with non-binary gender identity";

replace "the former protocol which dictated that they were the property of their husband" with "the former protocol which dictated that they were necessarily either man or woman";

and keep the rest exactly as written.

The only problem is that the biological protocol that dictates that you're necessarily either man or woman isn't "former". And it's not as easy to discard as a mere social convention.

 

[xjx388]

You can't see the inherent paradox in your position here?

On the one hand, you're stating that 1) it was correct that married women might, for the first time, want to be identified in their own right rather than the former protocol which dictated that they were property of their husband; 2) most people could wrap their heads around the concept; and 3) there would unfortunately still be some people who wanted to hang on to the old patriarchal system.


Well..... now replace "married women" with "people with non-binary gender identity";

replace "the former protocol which dictated that they were the property of their husband" with "the former protocol which dictated that they were necessarily either man or woman";

and keep the rest exactly as written.

Done...it doesn't work. We all know what a married woman is and what the status of "married" vs "unmarried" is supposed to represent in society.

Not so with "non-binary gender identity."

 

[HansMustermann]

I think this is a legit "check your privilege" scenario. It's easy to shrug off the occasional misgendering when you're not experiencing any distress about your gender self-ID, and you don't have to deal with misgendering issues all day every day.

Hmm, well, I'd think I spent enough time claiming I'm a girl or to be neither in this lifetime to not be entirely as privileged as you seem to think, when it comes to people not quite believing it. And trust me, I wasn't particularly discrete about it. I pulled stunts like that in front of the whole flippin' school and then in front of the principal, among other things. So, yeah, if you think I didn't have a LOT of people going "oh great, it's that weird guy pretending to be a girl again"... yeah, you may well be mistaken

The only 'privilege' I suppose was not being in any particular distress about whether or not everyone plays along, but that's more from being raised to not think that everyone owes me that. Or indeed owe me a damn thing at all.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure if that is true, right now, in parts of Europe. Saw the phrase "accused of gendering a non-binary person" in print a couple years back, the implication was that the accusation might reasonably carry social or organizational sanctions.

Come to think of it, plenty of North American Human Resources experts would probably tell you right now that using the wrong pronouns for your co-workers creates a hostile work environment.

To me, that's more of a "do I owe myself my own self-preservation" question, than a "do I owe anything to anyone else" question.

The operators of the Underground Railroad didn't owe it to slave "owners" to return "their slaves", just because that happened to be the law of the land.

The consequences society imposes on me for dissent or disobedience do not define the moral obligations I recognize for myself.

 

[theprestige]

This is total nonsense. Gender identity is a condition which is internalised to the person concerned. It's categorically nothing to do solely with what others think about the person, based on their appearance/mannerisms/etc.

Just as a thought exercise, the singer Sam Smith is a male who identifies as non-binary. How on earth does the way in which Smith presents themselves via dress/mannerisms/etc act as the necessary indicator of their gender identity? After all, they dress and present essentially as the "man" gender. By your reckoning, since Smith presents as "man" to others, this therefore means that "man" must be Smith's actual valid gender identity.

If he looks like a man to other people, then he looks like a man to other people. What he looks like to himself inside his own head is completely irrelevant to how other people identify him.

In the bedroom, how he identifies to himself in his own head is completely irrelevant to whether his partner is sexually attracted to him.

So in fact, you're denying the validity of (true) gender identity with your bizarre misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what gender identity actually is.

I think it's the other way around: The only time gender identity matters is when it matters to other people. If this was only ever about how Sam Smith sees himself in his own head, there would be no issue. But it isn't. It's about how other people see Sam Smith in their heads. And that's something that's only up to them. Sam can think of himself as non-binary all he wants, but when it comes down to how other people think of him, well. That's up to them to decide. And most are probably going to have a distinctly binary perception.

 

[d4m10n]

The operators of the Underground Railroad didn't owe it to slave "owners" to return "their slaves", just because that happened to be the law of the land.

They had a legal obligation to do so, just as people have a legal obligation to repay or legally restructure their debts. This is the usage of "owe" which I'm most familiar with, but I'll try to bear in mind that you're talking about individual ethics rather than broadly recognized social or legal obligations.

 

[Distracted1]

If he looks like a man to other people, then he looks like a man to other people. What he looks like to himself inside his own head is completely irrelevant to how other people identify him.

In the bedroom, how he identifies to himself in his own head is completely irrelevant to whether his partner is sexually attracted to him.



I think it's the other way around: The only time gender identity matters is when it matters to other people. If this was only ever about how Sam Smith sees himself in his own head, there would be no issue. But it isn't. It's about how other people see Sam Smith in their heads. And that's something that's only up to them. Sam can think of himself as non-binary all he wants, but when it comes down to how other people think of him, well. That's up to them to decide. And most are probably going to have a distinctly binary perception.

One wonders how many dozens of pages of discussion are going to circle around that one simple point.

 

[theprestige]

One wonders how many dozens of pages of discussion are going to circle around that one simple point.

I'm good for about two more turns, and then I'll let it rest a bit. The only reason I'm even belaboring it now is a slightly different audience that may not have considered it before.

FWIW, LJ has previously rejected the premise that in the bedroom, it's entirely up to your partner to decide what gender you are, and whether they're attracted to it. I expect him to do the same again, bringing us around to the end of the loop. I'll probably hop off the merry-go-round at that point.

(This is one of the few contexts where the example of homosexuality is applicable to the question of gender identity.)