What is nonbinary?

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you think that sex identity is useful in any way? For example; dating, doctor guidance, adult guidance, therapy guidance (for some reason some people prefer a certain sex for a therapist).

Yes, it just shouldn't be one of the main identifiers we use to distinguish between each other and attach social expectations to.

In regards to your last question; I would say they are blonde, but if extra context were needed I would say they are naturally brunette. The same would go with sex: male but assigned female at birth.

I see your point now…

Yeah, this is basically the case. There's nothing wrong with identifying that someone HAS a biological gender, it just needn't be that which determines the pronouns, name, dress code, social expectations, etc.. that that person then has to live with. It's impossible to unbuckle the associations from the label unless we accept that the label IS just a label.

 

[Kfox]

I'm really not interested in having my identity tied to male or female. Nor am I interested in insisting others pretend that I am something I am not. Nor would I be interested in going to the gym.

Well it sounds like your personal situation would not be effected, but for those who insist on having their identity tied to male or female and insist others treat them as something they are not; and go to the gym, getting rid of gender and just going with biology will likely solve the problem people are having

 

[Kfox]

Which is true. People's modes of dress are not dependent on biology; modes of dress are socially determined. The fact that many people are cis gendered and tend to dress in a way that indicates and matches what social prescriptions society has about their biological gender doesn't mean that biology and dress are linked in a meaningful way beyond the way that we link them socially. There is nothing about wearing trousers, ties and suits that requires a penis, but we ASSUME the biological link because, socially, that's the connection that society has created. Either way, the judgement you are making cannot be said to be drawn FROM biology, but from various other signifiers that you are socially programmed to ASSUME indicate biology.

I never suggested people’s mode of dress are dependent on biology, I said 99% of the time people choose to dress according to their biology

No, gender is an exceptionally loose concept that can be based on any number of factors. That's why it can be difficult to define.

Another reason we should get rid of it and go with biology

Fortunately, however, I haved defined it. Guess I am the most brilliant mind in the world, eh?

Really? Perhaps I missed it; what is a man? What is a woman?

No, that's not what I said. I said BIOLOGICAL GENDER isn't binary, it's BIMODAL. That doesn't mean that, socially, we don't treat it as a binary, and that people who don't ascribe to that mode of thinking can't consider themselves NON-binary.


Because most people ARE binary; they treat gender as a binary and prescribe certain social roles and labels as a binary. They are the exception to a SOCIAL rule, not a biological one.

Biologically, gender is bimodal.

Okay so we need to get rid of binary gender and go with biology which is bimodal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never suggested people’s mode of dress are dependent on biology, I said 99% of the time people choose to dress according to their biology

False - they dress in a socially prescribed way that is POTENTIALLY informed by their particular society's view on gender, which is often - though not always - linked to biology.

Another reason we should get rid of it and go with biology

That's not a good reason. We are always going to prescribe certain ideals about people depending on the labels we use for them. So, rather than arbitrarily deciding that your genitals should determine the modes of address you have for the rest of your life, perhaps we should just accept that it's a social label and adopt it as such.

Really? Perhaps I missed it; what is a man? What is a woman?

Ambiguous labels with various social implications depending on context.

Okay so we need to get rid of binary gender and go with biology which is bimodal.

Or, we can accept that these labels have come to mean far more than just biology, and that there is a social and psychological impact of gender, and that we are all free to adopt whatever label we wish.

We did the "defining people by their biology" thing for a long time. It resulted in rigid gender roles forming that had nothing to do with biology. Why not try something better, more accurate, and more in line with science?

 

[crossfire]

Well it sounds like your personal situation would not be effected, but for those who insist on having their identity tied to male or female and insist others treat them as something they are not; and go to the gym, getting rid of gender and just going with biology will likely solve the problem people are having

You cannot force people to disclose such personal and private information just to suit your personal preferences and curiosity. Medical information is protected by privacy laws.

 

[SomeRandom]

I never suggested people’s mode of dress are dependent on biology, I said 99% of the time people choose to dress according to their biology

If that’s the case, then I dare you to call Irish and Scotsmen girly for wearing skirts (kilts.)
Traditionally speaking.
I mean since pieces of fabric are apparently linked to biology and not fashion trends

 

[SkepticThinker]

You call it arrogance we call it truth

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok then, show me a trans woman who has given birth, I can show you billions of woman but not one trans.
To argue that a woman then who cannot give birth is the same as a trans woman is pathetic.

You appear to be arguing against yourself.

What constitutes a woman are the physical things men do not have, right down to the genes.
That’s why trans people need surgery, because they cannot or never will be a woman.
Surgery is a mask, I can put a silk hat on a pig but it changes nothing

You are talking about the biological definition of female.
The rest of us are talking about the social construct of gender.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay; so you say humans are bimodal. According to the person I was discussing with before you entered this conversation; that only means there are humans who are born intersex and that there are effeminate men. There is no dispute here; nobody in this conversation is disputing that. I’m saying just because a person is intersex or a man is effeminate doesn’t mean he is not a man

Well, it doesn't follow. You are saying that in the DNA as XY is the fact, that he is a man. You are saying DNA as XY means in the actually literal sense man. Okay, how do you see that?
So me, that is a norm in you. Because you can't actually objectively observe that XY is a man. Man is a label, you use as a result of culture.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sadly, there are now a few kids in public schools who identify as cats… and demand litter boxes be provided for them.

No there aren't.

Vet your sources better.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn’t read some article. It wasn’t Michigan. I personally know a school bus driver in CA and he has heard firsthand from students concerning this litter box situation in their school.

Sorry but I'm calling BS. I talked to a guy last week who said he knew a guy who new a guy that hear there were kitty litter boxes in schools in the next town over from where I live.

It's nonsense, InChrist. Made up internet garbage.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I say biology, I mean XX chromosomes instead of XY, a testosterone level of 15-25 instead of 900-1200, a pancreas instead of a uterus. Now what does any of that have to do with whatever you have in your pants?

Can you give a link to an actual health site for that?

 

[Kfox]

False - they dress in a socially prescribed way that is POTENTIALLY informed by their particular society's view on gender, which is often - though not always - linked to biology.

How is this different from what I said? I made the claim that 99% (not100%) of the time you see a biological male, he will be dress the traditional way biological males dress. So how is your point different than what I’ve already said?

That's not a good reason. We are always going to prescribe certain ideals about people depending on the labels we use for them.

But when it comes to defining a man vs woman, gender obviously does not have a definition so if not biology, what should we use?

So, rather than arbitrarily deciding that your genitals should determine the modes of address you have for the rest of your life, perhaps we should just accept that it's a social label and adopt it as such.

But the problem with this social label, is it has no consistent way to determine if a person is male vs female; so again’ if not biology, what should we use?

Ambiguous labels with various social implications depending on context.

A man is an ambiguous label? Ambiguous is the epidemy of a non-answer. Ya see; you apparently can't answer the question either! Let me rephrase. What specific characteristics apply to men that do not apply to women?

Or, we can accept that these labels have come to mean far more than just biology, and that there is a social and psychological impact of gender, and that we are all free to adopt whatever label we wish.

But the problem is the powers that be are constantly trying to pretend as if gender is equal to biology when it is not. That’s why they say “trans women are real women” that’s why they started calling biological women “cis” women, because they want everybody to act as if the science of biology and the social construct of gender are equal when it comes to defining people. As I said before; that's why so many smart people look stupid when asked to define a woman; when just a few years ago a 5 year old could answer such a simple question.

We did the "defining people by their biology" thing for a long time. It resulted in rigid gender roles forming that had nothing to do with biology. Why not try something better, more accurate, and more in line with science?

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, how about if we just GET RID OF GENDER ROLES!

 

[Kfox]

Can you give a link to an actual health site for that?

I will admit I didn't look it up, i was just going by memory from my personal trainer days but upon further investigation it appears different sites give slightly different numbers; here is a site that says males are between 300-1000 and females are between 15-70. So though my numbers are a bit off, the point still applies

Testosterone Levels: Normal Levels by Age, Gender, and More

Learn about healthy and normal hormone and testosterone levels for both men and women—including how to test, symptoms of low testosterone, and treatment.

www.verywellhealth.com

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is this different from what I said? I made the claim that 99% (not100%) of the time you see a biological male, he will be dress the traditional way biological males dress. So how is your point different than what I’ve already said?

Because there are a number of steps removed from biology to representation. You fail to take account of that.

But when it comes to defining a man vs woman, gender obviously does not have a definition so if not biology, what should we use?

Social labels.

But the problem with this social label, is it has no consistent way to determine if a person is male vs female; so again’ if not biology, what should we use?

There is a consistent way. They can identify as it.

A man is an ambiguous label? Ambiguous is the epidemy of a non-answer. Ya see; you apparently can't answer the question either! Let me rephrase. What specific characteristics apply to men that do not apply to women?

There are none. What social expectations are associated with men or with women vary constantly. We have certain associations, but there associations are not inherent to the label and are always subject to change.

And it is an answer to your question.

But the problem is the powers that be are constantly trying to pretend as if gender is equal to biology when it is not.

I agree. So permanently linking the two does not solve it.

That’s why they say “trans women are real women”

No, that's not why. When they say "real women", they do not mean "biological women". They are referring to the gender.

You seem confused.

that’s why they started calling biological women “cis” women, because they want everybody to act as if the science of biology and the social construct of gender are equal when it comes to defining people.

Again, no. That's not why they did that. "Trans" and "cis" are opposing scientific terms. If something is not trans, it is cis. That's all it means.

As I said before; that's why so many smart people look stupid when asked to define a woman; when just a few years ago a 5 year old could answer such a simple question.

Again, no. They don't look stupid, they actually just understand the idea. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it stupid. You can follow the prescriptions of a five year old if you want, I am a bit more willing to educate myself than that.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, how about if we just GET RID OF GENDER ROLES!

We can do. I am a gender abolitionist. The problem is that you can't do that by permanently anchoring the way we refer to eachother to biological essentialism - that's exactly how gender roles became codified in the first place. You first have to challenge and change the labels before you can dissociate them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A man is an ambiguous label? Ambiguous is the epidemy of a non-answer. Ya see; you apparently can't answer the question either! Let me rephrase. What specific characteristics apply to men that do not apply to women?

Well, there is the problem as it turns out. If you start finding all the differences in brains between men and women and and test enough humans you will find that there are studies that point to that there are XYs that have more female brain traits than the average male and XXs that have more male brain traits.
In short the science points to that there are XY males with a female brain and XX females with a male brain or close enough that they self-report as trans or non-binary.

 

[Kfox]

You cannot force people to disclose such personal and private information just to suit your personal preferences and curiosity. Medical information is protected by privacy laws.

Going by biology does not mean disclosing personal and private information about yourself, all it means is if you know you are a biological male, you are restricted to public men's room.

 

[Kfox]

If that’s the case, then I dare you to call Irish and Scotsmen girly for wearing skirts (kilts.)

Why would I do that? I know little about Scottish culture, but aren't Kilts designed for men?

 

[Kfox]

Well, it doesn't follow. You are saying that in the DNA as XY is the fact, that he is a man. You are saying DNA as XY means in the actually literal sense man. Okay, how do you see that?

It is normal for males to have XY chromosomes instead of XX, just like it is normal for males to have 5 fingers instead of 6, However there are cases when males will born with something other than XY chromosomes, and there are cases where males (and females) are born with 6 fingers, but this is not normal. A doctor can examine the person and explain exactly what went wrong causing this person to be born with the wrong chromosomes or 6 fingers, because these cases are abnormalities.

 

[JDMS]

@Kfox

To address some of these points, I'd like to share my perspective as a binary trans person. I can't say I understand nonbinary identities, but at least for binary identities, we usually do identify with the SEX characteristics of our target sex, rather than just the gender identity.

When I was a kid, barely acquainted with gender roles, I still knew I wanted a penis. I thought I was a boy and didn't underneath why I didn't have one. I didn't understand why I got in trouble when I went into the boy's bathroom. Etc.

Going through puberty, I had massive dysphoria about my female parts themselves, and massive dissatisfaction about not having a penis, not having facial hair, etc. In all of my dreams, my brain depicted me as a male. I even had phantom limb sensations where I would feel I had a penis even though I didn't, similarly to how a amputated person still has sensations of their missing limb.

I didn't just have dissatisfaction about not fitting into a social role of "man", I LITERALLY felt a disconnect between my brain and my physical sex ... not gender.

And I do not get gender roles, gender, and sex confused these days.

Now that I am fully transitioned and have the things I wish I was born with (besides my chromosomes, but I can't see those, and no one else can, either, so it doesn't really bother me), I feel perfectly comfortable with my partner dressing me up or putting nail polish on me. I don't quail when I enjoy stereotypically feminine hobbies. On Halloween, I even put on a woman's bunny lingerie set along with all of my cisgender male friends, because it's just a fun time to twist gender roles, and I am, in my view, male enough. No one could tell that I was born female, even wearing that. Because I am as close to male now as one can get... and thats what I care about.

To me, nothing about the hobbies I enjoy or clothes I'm willing to wear determine my identity. I don't identify with male stereotypes, I identify with the male body. Being a tomboy isn't what I needed, being as close to a biological MALE is what I needed. I didn't need to wear a masculine outfit, or drive a pickup truck... I needed a penis and balls.

That's a lot of private information, I know, but I hope this made sense about why trans people don't necessarily fall for gender roles as much as many of us identify with a biological sex.

For nonbinary people, though, it might be different.