The Gender Non-binary debate.

Author
Discussion

Atomic12C

4,585 posts

153 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
On this point, I would disagree.
LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
For much of society the term 'gender' means an alternative method of classification of 'sex' (male or female). There is no law that has restricted the use of the word 'gender' to be something different.

As I mentioned in a previous reply.... if one is to term gender as something that can be 'fluid', and as such it can mean one identifies as a man, a woman, both or neither.....or even as a traffic cone!.....then its simply a statement that "gender" is meaningless and has no definition. So the logical conclusion is that one can not be "mis-gendered" as it does not define anything.


Clockwork Cupcake

57,708 posts

208 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
On this point, I would disagree.
LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
Apart from the fact that wilfully and deliberately mis-gendering someone, and denying their gender identity, is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term.

And as such, I'm calling it out as transphobia. Because it is.

The fact that you think it isn't doesn't alter the definition of the term.

It also rather illustrates my point.

Atomic12C

4,585 posts

153 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
... is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term.
I think this is where society may not agree.
Because society as a whole may not accept your definition; rather its only those with a belief that 'gender' is fluid and that there is an acceptance that one can identify with any particular aspect of it, would accept it.

If there is a judge in the UK that has pinned down the restrictions of use for the term 'gender' within society....and it follows your claim...then I'll happily stand to be corrected.

Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.

Clockwork Cupcake

57,708 posts

208 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
This comes back to an earlier part of the thread, where we concluded that if someone were to misgender someone as a genuine mistake, then no offence need be taken. But if someone does it maliciously, deliberately, and with the intent of offending, then it is fine to be offended by it.

xjay1337

11,074 posts

54 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Apart from the fact that wilfully and deliberately mis-gendering someone, and denying their gender identity, is classified as transphobia in all accepted definitions of the term.

And as such, I'm calling it out as transphobia. Because it is.

The fact that you think it isn't doesn't alter the definition of the term.

It also rather illustrates my point.
I don't think it's transphobia.

You are a man biologically, even if you do not identify as one, and I don't think it's wrong to accept that people may be calling you he / male.

I don't think it's being done in a horrible manner, or perhaps even consciously.

If it was being done consistently in a horrible manner , then that is a different discussion. I do not see that being done there.

No-one in this thread has ever been transphobic towards you or anyone.



Advertisement

pobs

69 posts

85 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Fun fact for some of you hung up on biology;

Deliberately misgendering a person is actually classified as harassment under the 2010 equality act.

bulldong

2,935 posts

139 months

Thursday
quotequote all
esxste said:
bulldong said:
Neither a doctor or a researcher, hence my question, and based on the dictionary definitions of what a condition or illness is.

The problem is that, well, the treatment is medical though isn't it (hormones and surgery), and there are psychological issues (or at least higher rates of mental illness) associated with it. It isn't clear to me whether these come from being repressed, or whether these issues cause a trans inclination. So does the declassification mean that it is automatically treated as a sexual health condition and the mental state of the patient is, by default, ignored?

Help me understand it, rather than berating and patronising me.
I'm sorry if you felt my first reply to you was patronising or berating. I asked whether it was gut feeling or whether it was an informed opinion based on medical expertise to provoke you into some critical thinking about your own opinions.

You said you found the WHO policy troubling, and if you consequentially said you were a medical professional, I would have enquired to find out why, because that would have been interesting to me.

If it was a gut feeling, as it appears to be, then that's entirely natural. It's arguable on of the reasons as to how human beings survived to evolve to where we are today, and my question was intended to provoke critical thought on it.

I'm not trans; and I'm not a medical expert. When I think back, there's not a moment I've felt anything other than male. I would hazard a guess that most of the population share my experience on that. I'm absolutely and inherently certain about that aspect of my identity, that it seems strange to me that when trans people express their gender identity; people immediately disbelieve or question them. Things like that, people know themselves.

The mental issues you raise are, I think, caused by the dissonance between what is observed in the world and the internal sense of self. Feeling alone and different from everyone else places great mental stress on a brain that evolved with needs for social contact and inclusion.
Actually the only doctor I have spoken to it about is my wife's cousin. She is not sure about it being mental illness or not. There is a mental aspect to it though, and that she is certain of. Whether it is an illness is another thing.




Shambler

742 posts

80 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Atomic12C said:
Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
This comes back to an earlier part of the thread, where we concluded that if someone were to misgender someone as a genuine mistake, then no offence need be taken. But if someone does it maliciously, deliberately, and with the intent of offending, then it is fine to be offended by it.
It is fine to be offended by anything, thats your personal viewpoint. To take your personal offence and try and shove it out there as some sort of heinous crime is not acceptable.

esxste

1,348 posts

42 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
What does the science say?
XXY disease which often places individuals in a trans-sex status.
There is therefore reasonable logic in those rare cases that the individual would 'feel' somewhere between like a man or like a woman depending on their physical 'deformities'.
From that, it would also be reasonable that such an individual would choose which gener to associate with based on what they feel most 'closest' to under the typical behaviours of men and women in society.


OK, so we've established that where there is a defined genetic component for you; you agree that a persons gender is whatever they think it is.

So a few questions on this:

Should such a person be forced to identify as either female or as male?

Would you accept such a person saying "well I don't feel a strong association with either gender?"

Finally; what if the X and Y chromosomes are not the only defining factor in gender? What if there were other genetic and epigenetic factors at play which would cause a person to have a gender different to what their chromosomes would indicate?



Atomic12C said:
This is very much different to 'normal' people with no medical condition(1) deciding to identify as the opposite sex or as the opposite gender, or whatever else they wish to identify as.
I think I need to know what the (1) qualifier is before I comment further on this.

Atomic12C said:
The concept of gender fluidity is nothing more than a statement to say that the concept of gender does not exist. If a person can be one, either or both, depending on how they feel when they wake up in the morning, then they are basically stating that concept of gender is something that society should drop. Which then makes a mockery of wanting to identify as one or the other in the first place.
Gender fluidity as a a concept does not include a notion gender does not exist. The concept is that gender is not binary; that it is a spectrum. Would you think that varying levels of say testosterone and a persons sensitivity to this hormones could leave them feeling more or less male over differing days?

Atomic12C said:
At the same time I fully respect people's ability to believe in whatever they wish to believe in, and this is a right I would happily fight with them on,....but the issue of gender fluidity is a minority belief concept that should not be forced on to others if they do not wish to view society in that way.
Rejecting scientific evidence in order to maintain a hypothesis is a belief.

You've already accepted above that there is genetic causes for someone to not be born where they may not fit in to the concept of only two genders. There is much more evidence that similarly challenges the hypothesis of binary gender.


Atomic12C said:
Many still view the original use of the word 'gender' to mean a 'sorting', which basically means the sorting of the two sexes, male or female. I presume the majority of society still wish this terminology to be a simple binary sorting - no matter how loud groups pushing for change will shout.
For many people I guess they are comfortable with what they know and are familiar with - this is not something that should be shouted down, but something that people should accept....just as much in the same manner that people are free to believe in what they choose to believe.
Society on the whole adapts and changes with new knowledge. To not do so is to stagnate and die. People get to know new concepts and become familiar with them. A prime example recent such concept is that of the internet. Before the late 90's the vast majority of people had no concept of what the internet was; and now they're buying their groceries using it.

Atomic12C said:
But there should always be a boundary that means believers should not be in an authoritative position to force their beliefs on to others.
I would quite agree. And assume you would agree that is applies to people who can't let go of the belief in binary genders despite much evidence to contrary.


AshVX220

3,281 posts

126 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Oh, and I took it as such. I apologise if my reply suggested otherwise.

I just meant that things that don't affect us are less obvious. It's like when you decide to buy a certain type of car, and suddenly the roads seem full of them. smile

For example, I don't see much racism in the workplace. Yet I know, intellectually, that it must happen and I probably don't notice it.

And as another example, many wouldn't have seen LaurasOtherHalf deliberately and maliciously mis-gendering me by the use of "he" and "him" as transphobic.
I noticed that and thought it was just a bit of a st thing to do/say to be honest, it's not like none of us know you're trans!

However, I can understand some of the concerns that LaurasOtherHalf has raised. No, not all men are rapists etc, but I worry that some laws may have un-intended consequences. Such as a peado identifying as a trans woman in order to spend weekends camping with young girls for example. In some (very rare) circumstances it may make their ability to commit their crimes easier.

As you've already alluded to CC, there's nothing to truly stop a determined rapist from just entering the ladies to rape someone anyway, so the laws won't change that. But it's the more subtle things that may manipulated by a determined criminal.

Fortunately for me, I'll never have to worry about such things, because they don't and won't affect me directly in any way. Live and let live etc. Be whoever you want to be, in order to be happy.

AshVX220

3,281 posts

126 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
I think this is where society may not agree.
Because society as a whole may not accept your definition; rather its only those with a belief that 'gender' is fluid and that there is an acceptance that one can identify with any particular aspect of it, would accept it.

If there is a judge in the UK that has pinned down the restrictions of use for the term 'gender' within society....and it follows your claim...then I'll happily stand to be corrected.

Having said that.... I don't think I would be offended at all if a random internet name, from an anonymous person, referred to me as a 'she' for example...with myself also being a random internet name and also anonymous.
I think people these days have too thin a skin and are triggered to claim 'offended' all too easily.
But also having said that, I'm not in the same position as you and I accept we are all different.
I spend a lot of time at work dealing with people from the US, mostly via e-mail. The majority of them see my name and then refer to me as Ma'am in their replies as my name is entirely female in the states. I tend not to correct them, as I had great fun when I get to meet them in person and see their reaction. Though to be fair, we're all mostly ex or serving military and have a pretty warped sense of humour anyway, so the comments I get and give are quite amusing.

In a different way, for the last two years I lived in Orlando (back here now frown ). As such I had an annual Disney pass, which was linked to my Disney account under my first name. When ever I went to Disney the light would flash blue (requiring the staff to check my pass/ID etc) as they saw my name, saw me and assumed I was using a girls pass. When I went on to my account and changed to my more common shortened version of Ash, that problem immediately went away.

But, it's a different country where my name is very well known (around the world) as a girls name, so I just laugh it off. It's not in any way malicious.

Clockwork Cupcake

57,708 posts

208 months

Thursday
quotequote all
AshVX220 said:
I noticed that and thought it was just a bit of a st thing to do/say to be honest, it's not like none of us know you're trans!
Well, quite. I've maintained all along that I'm not the kind of person to take offence when none is intended. But I feel justified in being upset when it is very clearly intended. If you see what I mean.

This question was discussed at length a while back in the thread. I think this serves as a good example of where I consider the line to be.

Androgynous

18 posts

9 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Once more, for those who still[ don't get it, we are not talking about allowing trans women into female toilets, we are talking about banning them. I already go into female toilets. And guess what? I have never assaulted anyone. I just take a st or/and a piss, then wash my hands, maybe adjust my hair and makeup, and then leave. Just like every other woman does.
That's not a very ladylike expression.

Clockwork Cupcake

57,708 posts

208 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Androgynous said:
That's not a very ladylike expression.

gregs656

1,839 posts

117 months

Thursday
quotequote all
LaurasOtherHalf said:
The man who likes to think he’s a woman but is sexually attracted to women still being allowed access unfettered to women’s and girls changing rooms and toilets.

And this is only two-there are a million other imaginary scenarios.
This part of this post makes absolutely no sense. For a start, it is just as possible that the opposite attraction is true and by denying them access to their presented changing room you are keeping them in the same space as the sex they are attracted to.

Secondly, it is equally problematic to put trans women in mens changing rooms, or trans men in womens changing rooms as how they're presenting will make everyone uncomfortable.

Thirdly - gay and bisexual men and women share spaces with the sex they are attracted to all the time.

Fourthly 'likes to think' - given the prejudice, the complexity, the cost (emotionally and monetary) you genuinely think there are a great deal of men and women who 'like to think' they are trans? Really?

Atomic12C said:
On this point, I would disagree.
LaurasOtherHalf has every right to call you a 'he' if you a biologically a man.
How about you consider it not from a POV of who has what right, and what is simply the polite thing to do.

It is an odd situation where the same group of people who are apparently concerned about the mental health of trans people are the same group of people perpetuating attitudes and behaviors that place the greatest stress on that mental health.

It would be interesting to know how many people on here have, or have had, regular contact with trans individuals; it might explain the lack of human element. The stuff that pops up on here is the stuff that makes the news, and often not for great reasons.


TED Talk from Paula Stone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrYx7HaUlMY


Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 6th December 15:10


Edited by gregs656 on Thursday 6th December 15:11

Atomic12C

4,585 posts

153 months

Thursday
quotequote all
esxste said:
OK, so we've established that where there is a defined genetic component for you; you agree that a persons gender is whatever they think it is.

So a few questions on this:

Should such a person be forced to identify as either female or as male?

Would you accept such a person saying "well I don't feel a strong association with either gender?"

Finally; what if the X and Y chromosomes are not the only defining factor in gender? What if there were other genetic and epigenetic factors at play which would cause a person to have a gender different to what their chromosomes would indicate?
Apologies but I'm not going to do a full point by point multi-quoted reply...I think it would become extremely tedious.... so to answer the first points you mentioned....
Should somebody be forced? - no, ...I think everyone would agree on that.

Regarding 'gender', I 'agree' that when there is a medical condition such as XXY where the 'victim' is trans-sex, that the individual may struggle to associate with male or female. So they would choose to suit. As mentioned previously I think this is perfectly reasonable.

In individuals where by there is a clear biological sex, then I would say I would struggle to accept that the person is anything other than what their biology is. This whole notion of "identifying" as something else is not something that has any validity with me....albeit if it does make sense to others.
And although I will always think its absurd, I accept that others may think its fine.

Finally - I'm not involved in the medical sciences, so at the moment my understanding of sex is based upon XX and XY. But what I may say is that by widening the criteria for classification, it may only go to blurring the classification between other groupings/classes. And as such may reduce the effectiveness of using that as a classification. (Assuming you are using the word "gender" in the traditional terminology, which basically means "grouping/sorting" "of sex").

So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.

gregs656

1,839 posts

117 months

Thursday
quotequote all
So you're using science, but you don't know what you don't know, and have made no obvious effort to check?

This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...


Clockwork Cupcake

57,708 posts

208 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Atomic12C said:
So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine.

Atomic12C

4,585 posts

153 months

Thursday
quotequote all
gregs656 said:
So you're using science, but you don't know what you don't know, and have made no obvious effort to check?

This article is fairly interesting and mentions a number of studies - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-bra...
Cheers, I'll try to find some time to read in to that over the coming days.

Otherwise, yes I do try to follow a scientific method approach to many aspects of life, work, political issues and general day to day topics, and as such I am happy to correct and improve my knowledge if I can follow and understand the relevant scientific studies and procedures.
But medical science is not my strong hold, so it may take some time to find the rationale, if there is any, to change my current viewpoint.


xjay1337

11,074 posts

54 months

Thursday
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Atomic12C said:
So I guess my position overall is that until science demonstrates that a significant number of humans (as a significant percentage of global population) are biologically neither male nor female and are therefore a new category of 'gender', then I'll continue to treat gender as binary.
And yet we have words like "sissy" and "tomboy". So society already acknowledges than it's not a hard & fast rule that men are masculine and women are feminine.
But they are not trying to change the gender of the person!

That is a very poor analogy.