Should gender critical people actually be non-binary?? Or should non-binary people actually be gender critical?? I'm struggling to see the difference

On the “how do you know you are male if you haven’t been tested ” facile question I’ve been asked before by an activist, it’s bizarre how easily a “gotcha” question like that can be answered; I’ve fathered children.

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.

I never understand this argument from transactivists as surely if we did the test we’d then find we’re male or female according to our biology. (for those who don’t have any other way of knowing this, like having been pregnant.) so if that’s how you’re meant to tell, then trans identity is irrelevant, except as gender expression/personality which the same as what the GC view thinks.

I wanted to be a full human being, taken seriously, with my own unique collection of interests and talents and personality traits.

There's an obvious response quip here about "then why would you go for non-binary"? And I wouldn't make it to such a serious post, except...

That's not just a quip, is it? To some extent this will fizzle because non-binaries will increasingly NOT be taken seriously.

Particularly female ones, I suspect.

At the minute it's still (just) running on the novelty factor to be a sort of "discovery" for the potential recruitee, a sort of "wow, I've never heard of this, and it's so freeing from the rest of society!"

That can't last, once it becomes too widespread. It won't be a secret, freeing thing any more, it will just be a label for normal boring people in normal society. (Including lots of non-binary mums - I imagine there will be particular stereotypes for those).

I do see what you're getting at, OP. I'm GC but I think that if I were thirteen years old now I'd be taken in by the ideology and calling myself non-binary. I'm autistic, and I remember looking at what it seemed to mean to become a woman in my culture and not wanting it. I was looking at media representations of womanhood. Groups of characters in cartoons where there's only one female and her personality is 'the girl'. Women who exist in movies to be prizes for nerdy guys. Boring housewives who nag their likeable husbands in comedies. Adverts full of 'sex sells' - high heels and tight clothes and makeup. I knew I wasn't that. I didn't want to have to become any of that. I wanted to be a full human being, taken seriously, with my own unique collection of interests and talents and personality traits.

The problem was at that age (or possibly due to problems with theory of mind) I didn't realise that the same was true of every other woman. Yes, even the ones in high heels and makeup that I was so dismissive of. Media wasn't reality. There were no NPCs, no people who played supporting roles full of stereotypes. Everyone else was just as complex as I was.

Luckily, a couple of years later I started reading old second-wave feminist texts instead. There was nobody back then to tell me that some women were bad and had Wrong Opinions and even reading their work was 'harmful'. Young people today have to be much braver to go against the grain.

But yes, non-binary means that you believe in masculine and feminine brains - just that you're extra-special because yours is individual and doesn't fit in a box like everyone else's. 'You can't be non-binary, you're my mum!' exemplifies it, I think. It takes time for teenagers to think of their parents as real people, not just parents with no inner life beyond their children.

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.

It's the kind of thing people come out with after they read a few crap TRA blogs and Twitter threads. Sophistry.

Well I agree with you.

But isn't that the difference then between GCs and NBs.

GC don't really believe anyone has this inner sense of sex.

NBs believe people do have an inner sense, though of gender not sex. They use the terms man/woman and/or male/female to mean gender not sex.

Apparently unless we have tests done none of us know we are "fully" male or female because "intersex" people exist.
(Not my opinion BTW, but something I was told)

I assume with no other context, ie blind, that a person with "she/they" is saying they are a "femme" non binary person of either sex.

@drhf
We know that emphasising women’s sex is harmful in a professional context, so why not do less of it. I’ve noticed a few people recently giving their pronouns as she/they or he/they who seem to have a similar philosophy, rather than declaring themselves as having a special magical non-binary identity that’s somehow different from other people.

I've heard of this before (maybe it was you on another thread?).
I can understand the idea behind this, and somehow agree, but it has to be very clearly explained everytime you 'declare' your pronouns. Most people will understand something completely different if you say 'she/they'

Helen8220 · Today 01:32

@NotBadConsidering
the main difference from an interpersonal interaction point of view (certainly in a workplace context) is pronouns. Personally i would much prefer if we didn’t have gendered pronouns at all - whether you believe they refer to sex or to gender, why can’t we refer to a person without bringing their sex/gender into it? Anyway, if a person is uncomfortable being called he or she, I’m not going to do it - it’s just common courtesy, like getting their name right.

I find it useful to be able to confer the extremely relevant thing in many many circumstances - SEX - when using pronouns to refer to others. And it is ZERO effort to get this information across - all you need to do is add or leave out the "s" in front of the "he". Fantastic when language can get vital things across with next to no effort. In contrast to pronoun demanders who force people to take more words to get less meaning across, and actually to deliberately mislead.

I sincerely hope to never ever mis-sex anyone again.

Helen8220 · Today 00:45

There seem to be a lot of assumptions and generalisations being made here about what non-binary people are like. So, for balance - I have two non-binary colleagues. They are, I would estimate, late twenties/early thirties; both professionals (lawyers); perfectly sensible, likeable, intelligent people. They just want to be referred to as they/them, and not to be subjected to hostile comments or abuse regarding their gender non-confirming appearance. It doesn’t seem to me an unreasonable ask.

(1) So they want me to abandon MY sex-based pronouns that I use to describe the SEX of others, and they want to force me under threat of shame and accusations of bigotry to pander to their narcisstic nonsense-language.

(2) They want me to do (1) despite the evidence that to do so is to support an agenda that is homophobic and misogynistic and a woman and child safeguarding nightmare.

(3) If men or women get abuse for their appearance then that is obviously wrong.

But overall they are deeply unreasonable and do not appear to be sensible, likeable or intelligent, IMHO.

We’re all different, in exactly the same was as each other! Look at my purple hair, cartoon avatar, pronouns in my bio and socialist politics!

Yes, exactly this!

I’m another one who isn’t a fan of sex-based pronouns in most circumstances. I would rather keep them for when they are relevant (“she needs a mammogram”) and not lampshade people’s sex when it isn’t relevant (“they will have the draft ready next week”). We know that emphasising women’s sex is harmful in a professional context, so why not do less of it. I’ve noticed a few people recently giving their pronouns as she/they or he/they who seem to have a similar philosophy, rather than declaring themselves as having a special magical non-binary identity that’s somehow different from other people. I’m happy for people to use whatever pronouns they like about me in my absence - I don’t want to compel peope’s speech - but I also tell people my view on pronouns if they ask.

I agree that GC is not NB and I wish there was a “I have a sex but I reject gender as an oppressive hierarchy” option on forms asking for gender. I usually put Other and write that in.

And you know there won’t be. You certainly can’t explain it, you just think it’s whatever they think is reasonable enough. The only difference between you and the rest of us is you’re accepting of illogicality despite knowing deep down, whereas the rest of us aren’t. You know it makes no sense but think it’s decent to just shrug and go along with it. Which is your prerogative, I guess.

YY.

It’s really basic first year at uni women’s studies stuff (haha bet it’s not called that anymore). Helene Cixous outlined the binaries which are stereotypes based on sex split into male and female. So male is sun, female is moon, male is active, female is passive, male is self, female is other. It was a way of exploring how patriarchy forces women into the object rather than the subject role and submissive behaviours to support male domination over women. The binary was always an artificial construct, it was always meant to be fought against, it was never meant to define the sexes. It’s a manifestation of patriarchal stereotypes we are supposed to subvert, and do naturally within ourselves. Non-binary types like Laurie Penny just don’t understand this very basic feminist theory. It’s embarrassing tbqh.

They can’t - anymore than people can feel their age. Do 38yr old people wake up their birthday and think “OMG, I don’t feel 39! I must be trans-age or non-age!”?

Of course not. Age is a fact, as is sex. So, someone can’t ‘feel neither male or female’ because their sex is a fact. What they can do is refuse to be defined by the gender stereotypes associated with their sex - ie be gender critical.

The NB people at the workplace above (sorry I forgot the poster) still have a sex, and calling them “they” doesn’t remove their sex nor does it guarantee them freedom from sexist expectations. Personally I find it extremely sad that they can’t just be a woman or man and wear whatever they like. What they’re actually doing is reinforcing gender stereotypes: “Dresses are women’s clothes. If I wear a dress I can’t be a man anymore.” “ I wear a waistcoat and tie, so I’m not a woman” So regressive.

Interestingly, you say your other colleagues are ‘different’ because they wear the clothes associated with their sex and, by implication, therefore aren’t NB. Saying this just reinforces the fact that it’s largely about appearances. However, presumably none of those colleagues conform to gender stereotypes about behaviour, work choices, likes or whatever, so they’re equally as ‘NB’ as a woman wearing a suit or a man wearing lipstick. The difference is they don’t feel the need to announce this, and/or understand that other people feel the same as them.

When I was a teen, many male peers wore make up. I wore ‘men’s’ clothes and had short hair. How we laughed at our parents who found it shocking. How old-fashioned we thought they were! Now the world has moved totally backwards as Gender Ideology seeks to reinforce those stereotypes again and dress them up as progressive.

I don’t see how anyone can have an inner feeling of what sex they are. How can anyone know that a feeling means “female” as opposed to male?

We of course have physical experiences related to our sexed bodies, but an inner sense of sex, it doesn’t sound plausible.

From GC feminism

While wholly gender critical, I have sympathy with those who reject sexed pronouns in order to reject sexism though. There are good reasons to minimise consciousness of sex sometimes. That is why it is important to anonymise candidates’ names in exam assessments and job applications.

it is not a big step to ask people to become conscious that constantly operating a sex difference in a situation where sex should not be relevant is perpetuating sexism.

on the other hand I do want to celebrate women when they succeed on getting into male dominated arenas.

i agree though that most of those who currently claim to be non-binary are actually being sexist by believing in gender.

some languages, Mandarin for example, do not have sexed pronouns.

Lightstoobright,

“gender non-conforming” did not appear in the Stonewall glossary the last time I looked. Presumably because it would undermine the whole trans story.

so I don’t think you can “identify” as gnc user the trans umbrella. Sigh

Does the English speaking world have official representatives who give or withhold consent on our behalf, or does someone have to come around asking everyone for their views individually?

Well precisely. So why it’s been determined for us in the last decade or so that pronouns refer to a person’s inner perception of self, or “gender”, rather than the objectiveness of sex as has been since the evolution of the English language, on the basis of what a relatively small number of people around the world have demanded, remains a mystery.

Why do you think it’s up to me to interrogate my colleagues about their feelings regarding their sex or gender, and stand in judgement of whether their reasons for wanting to be called they/them are sufficiently robust to justify my doing so?

I was talking hypothetically about actually doing it. But if you can’t ask them, can’t get a clear view on why they think the way they do, why do you think you have a sufficient argument to justify their reasoning on this thread?

Does the English speaking world have official representatives who give or withhold consent on our behalf, or does someone have to come around asking everyone for their views individually?

Why do you think it’s up to me to interrogate my colleagues about their feelings regarding their sex or gender, and stand in judgement of whether their reasons for wanting to be called they/them are sufficiently robust to justify my doing so?

From what I can work out from conversations with a friend who is NB

I don't have an inner "feeling" ofbeing male or female. However I am female on account of my biology. I came to the conclusion that gender identity is nonsense.

NB friend doesn't have an inner "feeling" of being male or female. But believes this is because they are neither. They came to the conclusion they are non binary.

GC people don't chop breasts off or have gender nullification surgery as some NB people do.

I find it interesting that "gender nullification" and indeed presenting as "non-binary" is mostly young women trying to look like young teenage boys, by hiding or removing breasts, cutting hair short, wearing loose fitting trousers & shirts.

It's as if the default for human is male. So progressive.

Poor loves - it's as if they've internalised their culture's misogyny.

Well yea, there is, as if step one is using the other sex’s pronouns then step two can often be using their toilets, changing facilities, or entering their other single-sex provisions.