Non-binary identities are valid

[Emily's Cat]

I'll give you a small hint: sexual attraction is based entirely upon biological sex (including presentation which implies a particular biological sex). It has nothing whatsoever per se to do with gender identity.

I suggest you tell that to the penis-bearing transwomen who consider themselves lesbians and who harass and degrade and abuse female lesbians who don't want to have sex with their "ladydicks". Because apparently they haven't gotten that message.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ehhh, honestly, I'd say presentation is more important there by far than what sex you actually are. In fact, I'm not even sure the latter actually plays much of a role at all. I can tell you first hand that a guy with the right make-up can look attractive to other straight guys, and conversely a lot of women can pull off a convincing male act to be attractive to other straight women.

Initial evaluations of attractiveness, sure. But at some point, sexual orientation really does come down to biological sex, and the presence of a vulva where one desires a penis (or vice versa), is a pretty legitimate destroyer of attraction.

 

[xjx388]

Alrighty then.

Does a person's declaration of non-binariness entitle them to use both male and female changing rooms, on their whim? Does it entitle them to demand both a pap smear and a prostate screening? Can they hold both the male and the female position in a district in NY?

Duh, easy question. Only if they are genderfluid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And they have no relevance outside of a sexual relationship and should not be brought into conversations that have nothing to do with sexual activity.

I disagree. There are many areas where those traits have impact beyond sexual intercourse. The easiest one to point out is athletics, where the physical traits that differ between males and females results in a very distinct and material difference in performance. The physical traits matter quite a bit in sport.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to speculate here that she is responding to the common (thankfully becoming less common) "dumb blonde" stereotype, and not wanting to be seen as that. Regardless, it's clear that she sees not being blonde as an important part of her identity, and she takes steps to make sure that she does not present as a blonde. It would be cruel to repeatedly "mis-colour" her despite knowing how she feels about it.

This might be an analogy for something.

Sure, if we're talking personal interactions among friends. But her feelings about her hair color, regardless of how intense they are, don't alter reality. In any categorization where "natural redheads" are relevant, she should rightly be disqualified. And in situations where "natural blondes" are the category, she should rightly be included. I believe there is a subset of other genetic markers that are common among natural redheads... which she will not have.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd like some evidence that anyone is issuing commands about their pronouns.

Effectively...

 

[Emily's Cat]

As has been pointed out before, it's only bigotry if you continue to misgender someone after being repeatedly asked not to. It's bigotry when you persist in the problematic behaviour even when you know it's problematic. It's okay to slip up occasionally, but it's not okay to persist against someone's wish.

Wolli, you're one of the nicest, most compassionate people I know.

But when has this principle *ever* been successfully employed across the forum, let alone out in the real world? People persist in doing things that offend others despite having been asked not to all the time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah, well my definition of "command" is not "request with consequences". It's an order, or an instruction that is expected to be obeyed.

I'm not sure I see a meaningful distinction between "Eat that Twinkie!" and "If you don't eat that Twinkie you will be strapped".

I kind of feel like your distinction is in the semantic vacuum, up there with arguments that turning over your wallet at the point of a gun represents "free agency".

 

[Emily's Cat]

And while you're at it, I believe that there's web-based training* available which can help to "correct" your understanding & acceptance of transgender identity.....


* e.g. https://www.noconflicttheysaid.org/, https://wildwomynworkshop.com/

I honestly don't know how to respond when you snarkily present a link to females who have been bullied, harassed, and harmed the trans rights activism as if that somehow demonstrates... I don't even know what.

All I know is that you're using actual real females who have actually really been harmed and harassed... to support your narrative that male people with alternative gender identity should be prioritized.

 

[theprestige]

"Nice restaurant you got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

"Are you commanding me to pay you protection money?"

"Commanding? Who said anything about commanding? Are we in the Army? Do I sound like General Patton or something? Of course I'm not commanding you to pay uh... whatever that was."

"So... ?"

"So I'm just saying, maybe you should take out an insurance policy against your restaurant burning down. I can take your first payment right now, if you like."

"But it's not a command? Just a request with consequences?"

"More like a friendly suggestion with consequences, if you know what I mean."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually is the accused of using the wrong current pronoun given a bit of lee way if they use the last pronoun they were notified about after the first person changed them, but the wrong ones after the person changed them again after their gender fuidity meant a rejig.

Pippa and Philip

 

[Emily's Cat]

I recommend that you read DSM-5. Slowly and carefully. Then maybe read some cogent commentary on it if that'll help further.

It may then become clear (though judging by your post above, possibly not). So I'll give you a pointer to help you on your journey to understanding:

DSM-5 considers transgender identity (including non-binary transidentity) to be a valid condition in its own right - as opposed to a mental health disorder (or the product of a mental health disorder).

By contrast, DSM-5 does not consider the likes of a) self-identifying as a different mammal or b) self-identifying as an attack helicopter... to be valid conditions in their own right: it would place these types of thing clearly into the general bracket of delusions and disorders.

Hope that helps!

How about, instead of the snooty "suggestions" that you so love to dole out, you actually provide some support for your assertions for a change?

Hope that helps!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Might be wrong, but thought gender dysphoria e=was still a disorder

Gender Identity Disorder got renamed to Gender Dysphoria. It also got removed from the section on sexual disorders and paraphilias, and was given its own section and classified as a condition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) Do you, or do you not, think it relevant to your... "argument" that - currently - experts in the field consider transgender identity and homosexuality to be valid conditions

Please provide:
1) a definition of "valid condition" as you're using it in this context, and
2) support for your appeal to authority by providing links to the experts supporting your assertion above

Thanks in advance!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender dysphoria isn't an "explanation" for transgender identity. Quite the opposite: transgender identity is an explanation for gender dysphoria.

Source?

 

[LondonJohn]

I honestly don't know how to respond when you snarkily present a link to females who have been bullied, harassed, and harmed the trans rights activism as if that somehow demonstrates... I don't even know what.

All I know is that you're using actual real females who have actually really been harmed and harassed... to support your narrative that male people with alternative gender identity should be prioritized.

You'll probably have noticed by now that I neither agree with nor feel comfortable with the tenets of radical feminism. I entirely agree, of course, with the general concept of safeguarding women as much as possible. But not when it requires the denial of significant civil rights to another group (unless there truly is no reasonable alternative).

And fortunately, governments, parliaments and experts around the western world appear to be agreeing with my point of view. I wonder what all the women who form very significant proportions of all of those institutions are doing, huh? That's the point when most groups start to wonder why their positions are being so marginalised and rejected. But history repeatedly shows that it tends to have the opposite effect: it makes those radical fringe groups start to think there's some sort of conspiracy against their "perfectly reasonable" positions, and makes them want to shout ever more loudly into the ever-widening abyss.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've entirely missed the point here.

The point is this: whether or not Person A loves Person B is not a matter for Person B to decide.

Okay, now I'm just going to have to assume that you've never been in a long-term relationship at all.

Deciding whether or not one's significant other loves you is rather important to a relationship. Whether or not I believe that my spouse loves me is absolutely up to me to decide. He can say that he does till the sky turns green... but if I don't believe him, then we've got a serious problem.

 

[LondonJohn]

Source?

Same source that says carts cannot pull horses.

 

[theprestige]

You've entirely missed the point here.

The point is this: whether or not Person A loves Person B is not a matter for Person B to decide.

Exactly. It's not for a transwoman to decide that her straight partner is attracted to her because she identifies as female. Only her straight partner can decide if he identifies her as sufficiently female to inspire attraction in him.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay, now I'm just going to have to assume that you've never been in a long-term relationship at all.

Deciding whether or not one's significant other loves you is rather important to a relationship. Whether or not I believe that my spouse loves me is absolutely up to me to decide. He can say that he does till the sky turns green... but if I don't believe him, then we've got a serious problem.

Right. Let's start at the end of what you've written here. You talk about whether or not you believe that your spouse loves you.

So all you're doing is trying to assess whether the observable cues and signals he gives you indicate to you whether or not he genuinely loves you. Right?

But...... the matter of whether he loves you or not is entirely an internalised experience that he himself holds.

All you're doing is trying to guess correctly what his internalised experience is.


This is getting pitiful. Oh and I won't even start to address your first sentence. Suffice it to say that I might have felt tempted to make some observations wrt the rest of your post........