The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
gregs656 said:
But many people do believe that gender is binary..
And that is of course their absolute right - in a free society.The root problem is that the term 'gender' is being attempted to be re-defined. Historically it simply meant "a classification" of the two sexes. So the term was inherently linked to 'sex'.
Sex is binary - for the vast majority of the human race. However as already discussed there are rare diseases whereby genetic problems cause a condition called "inter-sex". But these numbers are not considered anywhere significant enough to establish a requirement for a 3rd classification of 'sex'. It is by definition 'inter' or between the binary classification of sex ie. either male or female.
The 'conflict' arises when people try to redefine 'gender' to mean something social instead of something scientific.
It is acknowledged that in many dictionaries these days the term 'gender' has been re-defined to be the new social meaning, but for many people the term still means the scientific term. And for that reason many will see it as binary. This is not 'wrong' or 'offensive', this just means that modern social forcings and "offense" needs to accept this. (In the same manner of reason how modern social pressures expect others to accept their new re-definings).
I think those who wish people to accept a new term for 'gender' need to make it clear that it is purely just a modern social construct term that has split from any connection with science/biology. Otherwise if there is an insistence on stating that 'gender' is scientific then people will still refer back to what 'gender' traditionally meant in the field of biology - and will always refer to it as binary.
Around 10m47 is very relevant to the current discussion points
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&...
Atomic12C said:
gregs656 said:
But many people do believe that gender is binary..
And that is of course their absolute right - in a free society.The root problem is that the term 'gender' is being attempted to be re-defined. Historically it simply meant "a classification" of the two sexes. So the term was inherently linked to 'sex'.
Sex is binary - for the vast majority of the human race. However as already discussed there are rare diseases whereby genetic problems cause a condition called "inter-sex". But these numbers are not considered anywhere significant enough to establish a requirement for a 3rd classification of 'sex'. It is by definition 'inter' or between the binary classification of sex ie. either male or female.
The 'conflict' arises when people try to redefine 'gender' to mean something social instead of something scientific.
It is acknowledged that in many dictionaries these days the term 'gender' has been re-defined to be the new social meaning, but for many people the term still means the scientific term. And for that reason many will see it as binary. This is not 'wrong' or 'offensive', this just means that modern social forcings and "offense" needs to accept this. (In the same manner of reason how modern social pressures expect others to accept their new re-definings).
I think those who wish people to accept a new term for 'gender' need to make it clear that it is purely just a modern social construct term that has split from any connection with science/biology. Otherwise if there is an insistence on stating that 'gender' is scientific then people will still refer back to what 'gender' traditionally meant in the field of biology - and will always refer to it as binary.
On the other hand, when someone comes into this thread with this:
neil1jnr said:
My personal opinion on this.
There are 2 genders, and I won't differentiate between sex and gender, regardless if it offends anybody.
Then has the astounding chutzpah to follow up with this:There are 2 genders, and I won't differentiate between sex and gender, regardless if it offends anybody.
neil1jnr said:
Worryingly, it appears a majority people involved in identity politics have a low tolerance to anybody that doesn't entirely agree with their points of view.
After categorically stating that he refuses to acknowledge trans people, Neil claims the problem is actually people involved in identity politics having low tolerance. And that's why this thread takes a turn for the worse occasionally, because posters like that aren't here to debate anything. Does the existence of transgender people disprove binary genders though? To say that your physical sex doesn't reflect your inner self has to be predicated on a binary system; I look like 0 but feel like 1.
I read an interesting study that talked about structural differences in the brain, that MtF brains were closer to female than male brains and vice versa. This doesn't suggest a non-binary spectrum of gender to me.
I read an interesting study that talked about structural differences in the brain, that MtF brains were closer to female than male brains and vice versa. This doesn't suggest a non-binary spectrum of gender to me.
Atomic12C said:
Sex is binary - for the vast majority of the human race. However as already discussed there are rare diseases whereby genetic problems cause a condition called "inter-sex". But these numbers are not considered anywhere significant enough to establish a requirement for a 3rd classification of 'sex'. It is by definition 'inter' or between the binary classification of sex ie. either male or female.
So, hold on. You make an absolute statement hat sex is binary - yes or no, 0 or 1, on or off, and then immediately admit that there are cases where this is not the case and that there are states other than the binary, in between those two binary settings. So, um, isn't that actually non-binary then? Binary has no concept of a quantum state in between 0 or 1. Clockwork Cupcake said:
So, hold on. You make an absolute statement hat sex is binary - yes or no, 0 or 1, on or off, and then immediately admit that there are cases where this is not the case and that there are states other than the binary, in between those two binary settings. So, um, isn't that actually non-binary then? Binary has no concept of a quantum state in between 0 or 1.
Sex is binary - but if you read what I wrote regarding the very rare cases whereby there is a condition of 'inter-sex'. "Inter" = between, the sex of either male or female. This still takes a binary stance because there is no new sex created with the condition of 'inter-sex'. In the realms of the social construct, the term in use is a redefinition of 'gender' - here the scale is analogue rather than binary. Some will measure it as a percentage scale of how male you identify and/or how female you identify.
Of which has no scientific standing other than in the field of mental health.
What I hope all within the debate can accept is the differentiation between 'gender' as a traditional scientific term and 'gender' as a modern redefinition term.
If there is acceptance then all parties will be happy with their own terminology and acknowledge there is a lack of overlap. Accepting this lack of overlap will avoid constant arguing and 'offense'.
Atomic12C said:
Sex is binary - but if you read what I wrote regarding the very rare cases whereby there is a condition of 'inter-sex'. "Inter" = between, the sex of either male or female. This still takes a binary stance because there is no new sex created with the condition of 'inter-sex'.
I'm not sure that you understand the definition of binary in that case. 
Atomic12C said:
Of which has no scientific standing other than in the field of mental health.
And psychology is not strictly a science... The idea that gender is a social construct is where I start to take issue. Certain elements of gender are a social construct - boys are blue, girls are pink - but the meat of a person's gender identity is not. If it were then we could easily reprogram transgender people to align with their sex, moral implications of that aside.It still confuses me that people can accept the concept of homosexuality and bisexuality, but then struggle to accept the idea that gender is not similarly non-binary.
We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
j_4m said:
Because sexual preference still exists in a binary context, necessary because biological sex is dimorphic.
That's a cracker. What does it mean?As a follow up to this as yet unanswered question am I correct in the thought that it's generally accepted that gender is social/cultural and that sex is biological.
Would that be a broadly accepted point of view?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 17th January 13:28
Clockwork Cupcake said:
It still confuses me that people can accept the concept of homosexuality and bisexuality, but then struggle to accept the idea that gender is not similarly non-binary.
We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
Because you can't change DNA.We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
It still confuses me that people can accept the concept of homosexuality and bisexuality, but then struggle to accept the idea that gender is not similarly non-binary.
We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
Wonder if one factor in this is paradoxically, people have been tacitly acknowledging through various means that gender is not a set thing for aeons, yet within this it blends in with a wider societal white noise making it difficult to see the bigger picture. Whereas homosexuality and bisexuality is, for want of better words, more visible. We accept that people deviate from the heterosexual norm yet some struggle to accept that people can also deviate from the cisgender norm.
Atomic12C said:
j_4m said:
Does the existence of transgender people disprove binary genders though?
An answer to your question is either a 'yes' if one defines gender as a social construct. Or 'no' if one defines 'gender' as being the traditional scientific term.neil1jnr said:
I think history proves it is not a social construct.
How?Personally I feel that it is largely a social construct, but not entirely. There are certain biological imperatives and psycho-sexual elements which manifest themselves in gender roles, but not to a point to disregard gender being a spectrum.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff