Non-binary identities are valid

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
In the other thread, I tried my damnedest to find some middle ground to build on and you literally refused to discuss it because would mean the possibility of understanding that genders can be, but aren't necessarily, sex-based.
Click to expand...

You repeated "That's wrong because it's offensive" and "That's wrong because I say so" about a thousand different ways, that's all you ever did between flounces which you would then return from and do a full argumentative reset. Get off your high ground.

Even now you just said "I can't find a middle ground with you because you refuse to admit I'm correct before we start talking."

If we agreed on how sexuality and gender interact then we're not having the disagreement we're talking about. So your "I can't talk to you because you don't agree with me on it" is completely nonsensical.

That's always how this discussion, every version of it goes. One side just declares the simple existence, even argumentatively, of the other side as inacceptable in the discussion so everyone in the discussion is already agreeing with them.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...

Distracted1 said:
One wonders how many dozens of pages of discussion are going to circle around that one simple point.
Click to expand...

That's why I've lost all patience with how often "Oh what does it matter what gender other people call themselves?" (or variations therefore) gets trotted out. It's nonsensical for just that reason. Stripped of the idea that I'm being given this information specifically because I'm supposed to be caring about it, what's the point?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
You repeated "That's wrong because it's offensive" and "That's wrong because I say so" about a thousand different ways, that's all you ever did between flounces which you would then return from and do a full argumentative reset. Get off your high ground.
Click to expand...
I never said anything of the kind. If anything, you're projecting.

JoeMorgue said:
Even now you just said "I can't find a middle ground with you because you refuse to admit I'm correct before we start talking."
Click to expand...
No, what I am and was saying is that a middle ground has to be a place where we could both be correct. You were unwilling to accept that such a position could exist, unless you're saying that you're willing to give it a try now?

JoeMorgue said:
If we agreed on how sexuality and gender interact then we're not having the disagreement we're talking about. So your "I can't talk to you because you don't agree with me on it" is completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting that there is a definition of gender that could accommodate both views, based on the social or cultural context given. We could, in fact, agree on how sex and gender interact as long as we understand the ...boundary conditions, for lack of a better term stolen from physics.

I had analogies ready having to do with cartesian vs polar coordinates or Newtonian motion vs Relativistic motion, but I couldn't convince folks I wasn't trying to somehow trick them.
 
Upchurch said:
I had analogies ready having to do with cartesian vs polar coordinates or Newtonian motion vs Relativistic motion, but I couldn't convince folks I wasn't trying to somehow trick them.
Click to expand...

That almost sounds like a parody at this point.

If charting your gender on chart requires a formula, you're making it too complicated.
 
Upchurch said:
I never said anything of the kind. If anything, you're projecting.


No, what I am and was saying is that a middle ground has to be a place where we could both be correct. You were unwilling to accept that such a position could exist, unless you're saying that you're willing to give it a try now?


I'm suggesting that there is a definition of gender that could accommodate both views, based on the social or cultural context given. We could, in fact, agree on how sex and gender interact as long as we understand the ...boundary conditions, for lack of a better term stolen from physics.

I had analogies ready having to do with cartesian vs polar coordinates or Newtonian motion vs Relativistic motion, but I couldn't convince folks I wasn't trying to somehow trick them.
Click to expand...


What is the definition of gender that accommodates both views? Let’s not forget that the word “gender” is a relatively recent addition to the sociocultural lexicon. Before too long ago, it was just a synonym for “sex.”

I see three definitions: 1) Biological sex; 2) Sociocultural roles for each sex and 3)An internal feeling. 3 is something I’ve only ever seen elucidated in these threads.

I’d love to see a definition that accommodates all views. Care to proffer it?
 
JoeMorgue said:
That almost sounds like a parody at this point.

If charting your gender on chart requires a formula, you're making it too complicated.
Click to expand...

If you haven't figured out that humanity is complicated, you're over-simplifying.

This is why I called baloney. You aren't at all interested in understanding other perspectives or points of view.
 
Before we go back down the rabbit hole yet again.

WHAT IS THE POINT?

"I identify as an X." What information is this supposed to convey?

If being a pansexual genderfluid lesbian doesn't change how I'm supposed to treat you IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY what... is... the... point?
 
Upchurch said:
If you haven't figured out that humanity is complicated, you're over-simplifying.

This is why I called baloney. You aren't at all interested in understanding other perspectives or points of view.
Click to expand...

Because at this point it's almost become some big performance art shtick of making the biggest deal about some arbitrary categorization distinction without difference just so you can focus your anger on people who get it wrong.

That's why I want to know what difference any of this makes.
 
Upchurch said:
I'm suggesting that there is a definition of gender that could accommodate both views, based on the social or cultural context given. We could, in fact, agree on how sex and gender interact as long as we understand the ...boundary conditions, for lack of a better term stolen from physics.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting proposal. Obviously I'm biased against it, but I'm willing to hear you out in good faith.

I'm especially interested in the idea of having good "boundary conditions" that facilitate some agreement between the two apparently intractable schools of thought.

What kind of boundary conditions do you have in mind? How would they inform the debate?

(These are not intended to be tricks or gotchas. If at any point, you think I'm asking gotcha questions, call me on it and I'll try to rephrase. Also, if you'd like to see some gesture of good faith, let me know and I'll try to accommodate. Worst case scenario, I'll hear you out, and then tell you where and why I have a hard disagree.)
 
xjx388 said:
What is the definition of gender that accommodates both views? Let’s not forget that the word “gender” is a relatively recent addition to the sociocultural lexicon. Before too long ago, it was just a synonym for “sex.”

I see three definitions: 1) Biological sex; 2) Sociocultural roles for each sex and 3)An internal feeling. 3 is something I’ve only ever seen elucidated in these threads.

I’d love to see a definition that accommodates all views. Care to proffer it?
Click to expand...

I tried to in the other thread. If you're interested, it's in part 5 of the "Transwomen are not Women" thread.

I'm not going to rehash it and I'm not entirely sure I see the point. Since then, I've seen the far-right and parodies of the far-right start to zero in on the sex=gender arguments I'm seeing here. Once they get firmly ingrained into their talking points, it will probably push the middle away from that perspective/understanding and bring a large portion of our society with it. We'll see how it goes, but if history is any guide, anything I say now will be moot in a few years. A generation at most.
 
There's no such thing as gender. Males can wear pink dresses, females can shave their heads and have a beard, and so on and so forth. Kumbaya?
 
Olmstead said:
There's no such thing as gender. Males can wear pink dresses, females can shave their heads and have a beard, and so on and so forth. Kumbaya?
Click to expand...

No because that level of acceptance means nobody is a special exception and more and more I'm thinking that's what this is.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No because that level of acceptance means nobody is a special exception and more and more I'm thinking that's what this is.
Click to expand...
The first non-binary person I encountered accused a JREF forum member of using a selfie-stick for nefarious purposes at TAM 2011, kicking off something of a kerfuffle based on little more than suspicion. It would be silly to generalize from this one example, of course, but that was one helluva intro.
 
Last edited:
And I think we've reached why the discussion just goes in circles--many people promoting their take on the issue, but not much in the way of concrete proposals.

People that think gender (the social construct kind) is innate, what do you want from other people, or from the law, or from the rules of this board, as a result of that?

People that think that gender is determined by biology or how others (a majority of others?) perceive the person, what do you want, in the same contexts?

Same question for people that don't fit into those two categories (see what I did there?)

For all we know, what everyone wants is compatible without reaching an agreement on the principles behind it. For example, people want to be addressed by their chosen pronouns, and almost everyone is willing to do that even if they're on the other side of this argument. People don't want to go to jail for saying the wrong pronoun, and I think almost everyone agrees with that even if they don't agree on the principles.
 
gnome said:
And I think we've reached why the discussion just goes in circles--many people promoting their take on the issue, but not much in the way of concrete proposals.

People that think gender (the social construct kind) is innate, what do you want from other people, or from the law, or from the rules of this board, as a result of that?

People that think that gender is determined by biology or how others (a majority of others?) perceive the person, what do you want, in the same contexts?

Same question for people that don't fit into those two categories (see what I did there?)

For all we know, what everyone wants is compatible without reaching an agreement on the principles behind it. For example, people want to be addressed by their chosen pronouns, and almost everyone is willing to do that even if they're on the other side of this argument. People don't want to go to jail for saying the wrong pronoun, and I think almost everyone agrees with that even if they don't agree on the principles.
Click to expand...
And back to.....
One is not addressed with a pronoun (other than "you").

The Principle is not how some wish to be addressed. The Principle is how some wish to be spoken about. That is not a rightful demand for respect- it is an attempt to reverse engineer thought through control of speech.

A factor in the circularity of the disagreement is that we can't even seem to properly frame what the disagreement is. :)
 
Olmstead said:
There's no such thing as gender. Males can wear pink dresses, females can shave their heads and have a beard, and so on and so forth. Kumbaya?
Click to expand...
Are you simply pointing out the obvious?
Multiple threads discussing this topic and its corollaries, thousands of posts, and I can not think of a single one that ever suggested otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom