If you're non-binary...

We will never reach a discussion on it when it is referred to as selfish and indulgent and when that fails, a threat to womens rights .

Yes, I am suggesting that. I'm not in any way shape or form taking away the difficulties of being trans or NB but as a physical process, yes its easier, particularly for biological women.

Nobody really uses that terms an identity label, though. It has simply become a short-hand and clumsy/ wholly inadequate way of referring to a critical stance against gender identity theory/queer theory. I certainly don't use the term to describe myself in any meaningful way.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your first assertion here. The whole point? What is that, can you articulate it, please?

Secondly, I do agree that NB is something that has been lumped in with 'trans' when it may well have a lot of very different features and arguments involved. It's not something that seems so urgent, tbh, so it gets pushed aside, and it might be an interesting concept to explore if women weren't currently focussed on trying to protect their rights.

Are you suggesting NB is a sort of easier alternative to a trans identity?

The way I see it is that many people, in their desire to be part of the 'in group' zetgeist are adopting NB as an identity label because they don't feel the need or the desire for the 'trans' label - but at the same time they want to be a bit 'queer' and seen as unconventional.

Performative identities are the dish of the day. And because there are no longer any subcultures which revolve around music/clothing and so on - NB ( along with trans) has become the new teen youth subculture - part of the 'rainbow family'.

Yes, absolutely.

It also comes up quite hard against reality, when you consider that although ideas, concepts and possibly language to an extent really are that malleable, human beings, with our finite, food-in-shit-out, mammalian, sex-perpetuated existence, are very much bound by many very unarguable boundaries.

Gravity, sex, death. These boundaries just aren't for shifting.

“yet it appears to be the case that GC can decide whatever they like about what people think but nobody is allowed to be able to identify themselves unless they approve.”

This is a misrepresentation that has run into absolute territory of ‘if you are with us, you are against us’. People can say that they believe others beliefs are based on flawed premises or are unsupported by science or they can wholly agree or they can think something in between. Either way, no person has to validate or respect anyone else’s belief or opinion within reason. (Unreasonable would include harassment, assault etc). Simply disagreeing with someone’s identity or their beliefs is actually acceptable in the UK.

Now, if you want to convince others to uphold your personal identity (as opposed to you having a position where you have authority over a person’s freedom), you require something such as science to substantiate it. Not just a vague belief that you are something. You can hold that personal belief, but not one of us in the UK needs to support it.

I don’t believe any poster here thinks they have any right of ‘approval’ over someone’s identity. They DO have every right to not support it. So your statement comes across as simply emotionally manipulative hyperbole.

Plus please stop dehumanising what I understand to be your reference to posters on this board. ‘GC’ is dehumanising in the way you use it. If any poster used ‘transes’ or ‘the trans’ in the same manner they would be deleted. And rightly so.

Plus, why do you care what a bunch of anonymous 'GC' on the internet think, whether or not we 'approve' of how you identify?

This is revealing a bit of a problem, really.

People just can't be forced to respect you or think of you in one way or the other. In the old saying, respect has to be earned.

We can try to compel others to act a certain way, and often laws can be made to enforce that.

But thought? Compelling thought is a whole other kettle of fish.

One of the deeper undelying themes, in a culture which gives arise to such need for identity labels, is that of openness/boundarylessness/limitlessness - which have been redefinied in essentially affirmative ways -as wholly positive values. Boundaries, discrimination, and limits on the other hand have become pejorative concepts.

The breakdown of the boundaries between the public sphere and the private sphere leads individuals to broadcast their most intimate and inner-most selves for public comsumption or display - and this is seen as a worthwhile end goal. People are being conditioned to expect continual public validation for their most private selves.

The whole point of NB is that they havent changed sex.

Might be a controversial view but I genuinely believe NB would be less common if there wasnt such a backlash against trans.

I think the word/concept here that is causing issues is 'identity'; although you're using 'identify'.

Everything isn't an 'identity'. Someone can call themselves Napoleon - they are free to do so, but it doesn't mean other people are obliged to agree that they are Napoleon Bonaparte.

I think most people's objection to this is when people try to apply a label to themselves that is counter to reality. We can't choose our sex. We can't identify out of it. We can't change it.

Theres a lovely passive aggressive mn comments thread running in trending . You might enjoy that.

Perhaps you could explain to me how even on this thread alone this isnt the case?

Yes, I agree with all those other points, tooo. Especially about context. Titles are esseentially superfluous except in very rare situations.

Of course, gendered pronouns are also superfluous in a lot of instances, and I would have much more respect for the evolution towards they/them if the suggestion was that they should be used for everyone, not just people with a special identity.
That would be the actual parallel with the evolution towards using Ms. No suggestion of a third identity that was neither married nor unmarried, or that was neither male not female. Just a simple omission of any unnecessary categorisation by marital status or sex.

if that's what it appears like, try cleaning your glasses a bit?

No, you cant, yet it appears to be the case that GC can decide whatever they like about what people think but nobody is allowed to be able to identify themselves unless they approve.

The cult of individualism and of very publicly pursuing one's 'true self' is a very contemporary form of narcissism.

People can think whatever they like about themselves, but can't expect me to agree if whatbthey think isn’t backed up by reality. And thinking of themselves as a footballer doesn't entitle them to be on the pitch at Patc des Princes (or even Accrington Stanley) on Saturday.

But you can't be in charge of what someone else thinks either. An impasse!

But I think that deciding youre in charge of what someone else can think about themselves is entitled.

sorry that's a massive digression, just how my branes work

Re: people dressing up in footie gear, while not actually being footballers

Urban Dictionary: full kit wanker

Full-Kit Wankers (@Full_KitWanker) / X (twitter.com)

full kit wanker
A grown man or Woman wearing a full football kit in a public place other than a football pitch. Football Shirt, shorts and socks. This may also apply to other full sports kit wearers in similar situations. You will naturally think/say ' What a wanker'. Therefore 'What a full kit wanker' is applicable.

Being female/a woman does not define you as an individual; say anything about your political views; your tastes and preferences; your clothing choices; where you like to go on holiday; what sort of films you like; your musical tastes........It is not 'an identity'. It is just a fact of life on earth.

Your identity does not change your sex, nor does it change the instinctive way that people perceive you.

'Identity' has now come to mean something far more than it did before - which is the inner core around which someone builds a stable sense of self. Now it has come to mean some having to make sort of overt public pronouncement and/or performance song and dance. Identity has become performative - very consciously so. Pure Queer Theory.

To a point yes probably.

Of course there are men who identify as NB and older women. When a word has no coherent definition you can project whatever meaning you want on it so the motivations of a male NB won't necessarily be the same as a female NB.

Taken as a whole though the appeal of adopting a NB identity seems to skew more towards young women and girls.

😁

Having watched a few NB Tik Toks I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than it being about control. Control over ones self and control over the external.

It seems to overwhelming appeal to young women and girls. There's often a strong vibe of 'not like other girls' about it which I think a lot of us can probably recognise from our younger years.

So is being NB becoming a female stereotype?