Non Binary / Gender Neutral

[MissBax]

Okay so I know this may spark some serious debate. I just want to say that I really don't want to offend ANYONE, however AIBU to say that the whole non Binary trend (for want of a better word) is getting abit out of hand??
If someone was born a man and chooses to transition to a woman or vice versa I understand that, but to say you don't identify as having a gender... I just don't understand it?! I am female but have never been girly - I didn't have dolls, I despise pink, and I always played football with the guys, climbed trees and was very sporty. But I'm still a girl. I know boys who didn't necessarily like "boyish" things but they're still boys. Any girl or boy can like anything they like.
Now we have "non binary" people who SAY they don't identify as one gender or the other, yet some of them are born female, wear make up and dresses. So following typically "girly" or "feminine" characteristics. Or those who have a sex change and THEN say they're non binary?! So then why have the sex change?!
AIBU to think this is just another way to ruffle people's feathers and possibly attention seeking?
(I wait in anticipation for being called ignorant and a biggot etc...)

Haha this is tying my brain in knots! Me too!

I do still think there are parallels to be drawn with class to help find a way to think about gender and gender identity.

Gender and class were both systems which came about to oppress others. The basis of the oppressed is a definite thing in the case of gender - sex and class - wealth (past or present).

The systems are undeniably there but you can choose not to participate in labelling or being labelled. But that doesn't stop other people labelling others or themselves even if you don't agree with the whole system.
I agree that choosing to label or be labelled perpetuates the system.

I see gender identity as people placing themselves somewhere on the masculine/feminine sex role stereotype continuum (whatever that means to them as it is not clearly defined). You don't have to do this but some people choose to for whatever reason.

This doesn't have anything to do with sex but often gets confused with biological sex.

Class identity is placing yourself somewhere on the class continuum between working and upper class (whatever that means to them as it is not clearly defined). You don't have to do this but some people choose to.
This doesn't have anything to do with wealth but often gets confused with wealth.

Not sure if that helps the discussion any but had to spew it out as my brain is about to melt.

I totally agree that you shouldn't make laws based on feelings.

I think 'cis' makes the gender labelling a bit different. Although some people do actively label themselves as 'cis', people who reject gender labels, and people who either don't know or care about the whole thing -
essentially anyone who does not publicly declare themselves to be trans/non-binary/agender/yadda yadda, is generally labelled 'cis' by default. I can't think of a comparison for this with class. And I think class has more of a material basis, a history. Some people will correctly or incorrectly assume a person to be a certain social class and treat them accordingly. Not many people will perceive a person to be agender (for example) and make judgements about them or interact with them differently. I don't know. I get very confused by social class. I don't understand if it's about how much money you have, or your parents had, or whether you say toilet or loo. I find it a very confusing topic. Sorry if that doesn't make sense. I'm thinking aloud a bit.

And I think class has more of a material basis, a history. Some people will correctly or incorrectly assume a person to be a certain social class and treat them accordingly. Not many people will perceive a person to be agender (for example) and make judgements about them or interact with them differently.

But they do make judgements on how masculine/feminine someone is and treat them accordingly.

I get very confused by social class. I don't understand if it's about how much money you have, or your parents had, or whether you say toilet or loo. I find it a very confusing topic.

Exactly! Because it's not a 'real' thing, like gender it depends on so many factors and different people have different opinions on it.

I'm not sure it's useful to compare class with gender. Yes they have parallels. Yes they are both man-made things. Social constructions.

But there are certain markers and circumstance which people can apply to you to identify your class. Whether everyone agrees with them or not, there are certain things that exist.

What markers and circumstances would you apply to a man to identify him as a woman?

You could say it's because he's wearing a dress and presenting as feminine. But the trans-ideology says they don't need those stereotypes to still be a woman.

Daniel Muscato looks and acts exactly like a man. He has male genitalia. There are no markers that you could apply to identify him as a woman.

Other than what he says.

And he can say the opposite tomorrow and it will still be considered authentic.

As an intellectual exercise it's frustrating.

As the basis for a law that is detrimental to women it is nothing short of scandalous and horrific.

And you can say you are classless. Or 'aclass'.

But everyone will have a means of identifying you as somewhere on the class spectrum. Because we have markers. Speech, education, wealth, parentage, etc, we have definite markers.

People who are interested in class would have no trouble testing your theory of where you place yourself.

The same way, I can test
Daniel Muscato's theory that he is a woman To me, no he isn't. Using every available marker and evidence. He is a man.

Except he isn't.

But there are certain markers and circumstance which people can apply to you to identify your class.

And most people would identify Daniel Muscato as a man by most markers and circumstance. It's him that's doing the identifying as a woman.

It's the 'identify as' part that confuses things.

You might identify me as working class by markers and circumstance but I may identify as middle class (a la Mrs Bucket). You can identify me as working class all you want but in my head I'm still middle class.

I think the class analogy is extremely apt.

X-post Datun. I think we agree, I'm not even sure what my point was anymore though!

But they do make judgements on how masculine/feminine someone is and treat them accordingly.

No, they don't. They are treated according to whether they are male or female.

You don't treat a masculine woman as a man. You treat her how you treat a feminine woman.

If a woman presents masculine enough that she is mistaken for a man then she's treated as a man.

And lots of people treat masculine women differently even if they know they are a woman. I have an extremely butch friend who is spoken to (by men mostly) in a hugely different way to how they speak to her very fem wife.

But gender has become decoupled from sex-based oppression. It doesn't mean that any more. There is no definite thing underlying what is now known as gender oppression. People now believe they are oppressed because of gender if we don't validate their gender identity. Nothing to do any more with the actual oppression that female people face. A man is now oppressed if we fail to validate him as a woman because he likes dresses and make up. It's a total reversal.

I don't think labelling is the problem exactly. We could do away with labels and rich people would still exploit poor people, male people would still exploit female people, we just wouldn't have any way to name the problem, and if we can't name the problem we can't solve it. We need the right labels though - ones that relate to material reality and accurately describe what's going on.

It doesn't matter where you want to place yourself on the masculine/feminine sex role stereotype continuum. Other people, and society generally, will place you where you 'belong'. You'll be at a disadvantage if you were born with a vagina.

It doesn't matter where you want to place yourself on the class continuum either. Other people, and society generally, will place you where you 'belong'. You'll be at a disadvantage if your family weren't wealthy, you didn't go to the right schools, you don't have the right connections, haven't been schooled in the right social cues and etiquette rules.

splendide

Well yes, I agree if you actually can't tell if someone is a man or a woman, they will be treated in a certain way. But only up to the point where their biology starts to matter.

And it's not about individuals. It's never about individuals. It's about women as a whole, as a class.

It's about the abstract idea that women are considered inferior.

Individual women, if they look exactly like a man, might do better in a company, for instance. But they will be socialised as female, and all the usual things that that entails.

But the things that set us apart, i.e. our biology, will still impact her.

She wouldn't be able to identify out of rape, pregnancy, menstruation, etc.

There are a finite number of things where women are disadvantaged over men. Abortion rights, reproductive health, FGM, rape, domestic violence, young girls being married off to old men, honour killings, period poverty, etc.

And other things like not being allowed to drive, being taken out of school during menstruation and isolated because you're considered unclean.

These things aren't done because women have red hair or blue eyes.

They are done because there is one class who oppresses the other.

And you can't legally suddenly include a member of the oppressor class into the oppressed. Anyone can do it, in that case.

Lines can't be blurred between how women are treated because of their biology and men saying they are the same.

Legally, I mean. And culturally.

Socially it's not such a problem.

But the motivation for men to do this is very strong. We have gone from treating a man with gender dysphoria as a woman, out of courtesy. To the legal definition of the word woman changed to include men. And all women's rights, scant as they are, ceded to them.

It's a very slippery slope.

jelly "Which is what I am saying about agender. You don't need to identify as agender, you just are agender if you don't have a gender identity."

I don't think I agree with that, I would say for agender you do need to identify with it, otherwise how would people know. How would they know if you have a 'gender identity' or not. I think people who 'like' gender would usually assume a gender based on how you appear. Or they may ask you.

So agree with Pencil "personally, to not have a gender identity, with the implication that it's totally fine and reasonable that other people would have one."

I do wonder why Canada has ended up in the mess it is in. How could that happen.

Jelly I am not sure I agree.. "Gender and class were both systems which came about to oppress others. The basis of the oppressed is a definite thing in the case of gender - sex and class - wealth (past or present)."

Sex is the thing that oppresses women, gender is what is constructed around it.

I think class is actually more complicated because it contains the practical people with money and people with less money etc but it also is linked to which family you are born into, what your father does/did for a living and what you now do for a living etc. And yet more people would maybe define it by the way you speak etc!

"Class identity is placing yourself somewhere on the class continuum between working and upper class" but in reality this does not happen, we do not place ourselves, others place us by either a strict definition of class or by their own internal definition of class.

I think gender identity used to be like that, a trans friend has told me that their view is gender is how others see you. They were a very effeminate gay boy so others saw them as feminine.

But now gender is all about how I identify.

YouMayVeryWell I think class is about your belonging to a social group and it is based around a number of things but primarily work. EG working class.

www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/social-class-49

or if you want more detail...

www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/social-and-global-stratification/types-of-social-classes-of-people

So class is a real thing but of course it is a social constructed real thing, just like gender. However, it seems that what constitutes gender is actually very fluid in itself. So you can have a female person presenting as very feminine but wanting to be called non-binary! It's a real thing but it makes no sense! (to me).

Datun "What markers and circumstances would you apply to a man to identify him as a woman?"

I would say sexual stereotypes. Just that. Liking things that most girls like, most boys like, most men like, most women like, or more importantly are perceived to like.

"But the trans-ideology says they don't need those stereotypes to still be a woman."

I think this is sadly for trans activists actually a very clever way of saying that whatever shit we make up, makes sense! It gets 'around' a few things - pass-ability (no need to pass anymore - which many early transitioners do and late transitions (M2T) do not. It covers the body in the sense of don't ask what surgery I ahve had, it is not relevant. It takes 'things' out of the practical reality and into the I am what I think I am.

"As the basis for a law that is detrimental to women it is nothing short of scandalous and horrific."

So true and of course would not be tolerated for anything else. It is a way of tearing down what it means to be a woman. In this way I could not identify myself into a job (I've always believed I was a brain surgeon) or any other 'status' and maybe it is because the status of women is so low that it was believed if people wanted to stoop 'so low', let them!

Canada's approach to trans issues has mostly come about because of a series of provincial Human Rights tribunals, some of which were followed by court appeals and rulings so very much focused on cases where individuals were being discriminated against, and building on from criminalization and discrimination and subsequent liberalisation fought for by the LGB community.

Most people see trans issues as being very much related to LGB issues, and are therefore apologetic for historical wrongs and wanting to do the right thing. Plus some aboriginal peoples are fighting for 'two-spirited' people within there community where you also have cultural genocide and colonialisation to contend with. This is also an area where many feel guilt (and many others are still racist).

All very piecemeal really. Unfortunately the current debate around C 16 is being portrayed mostly as a fight between religious bigots and the righteous progressives so other voices have pretty much been squeezed out.

nooka

Are you Canadian or do you live there?

I'm wondering if this is on most people's radar or not.

Loads of people in this country aren't really aware of it. Or if they are, they are still at the live and let live, let's be inclusive stage. Without really analysing it and taking it to its logical conclusion. Or illogical conclusion.

Italiangreyhound

Yes, I get the impression that the transactivists were not prepared for the pushback from women.

Some of them are simply dripping in male entitlement. I've never seen that phrase demonstrated so profoundly.

As soon as a woman says um, no, even in the mildest terms, the outrage and violent reaction is shocking.

There is a swift switch from, please be inclusive, to, if you don't centre me you are not human and deserve to be raped and killed.

At first, I thought, well there are misogynistic idiots everywhere. But, this ideology is like a magnet.

And it permeates the community. The lengths they have gone to to discredit anyone who voices the smallest objection is shocking and so very depressing.

When feminists would talk of the patriarchy and when Germaine Greer said women don't realise how much men hate them, I was a bit meh. I thought that's a bit extreme. And not my experience.

But just delving into the trans-ideology for a few hours, totally changed my mind.

Over two women a week being killed and the huge amount of women who have suffered from assault and rape, is no longer any kind of surprise to me.

And what on earth have we done to deserve it? Women do not seem to view men through this constricted, lopsided, totally warped lens.

I know feminists, lesbians, etc, are often called man haters but I've never seen a term so erroneously applied in my life. Men do all sorts of shit things, all the time, tons of them. And we still forgive, we still love.

We go out of our way to understand. Shelf after shelf of self help books on how to keep a relationship going.

I don't know what the psychology is behind it all. I can't help feeling it comes down to sex.

They view us as the gatekeepers to their happiness and satisfaction. And resentment is a byproduct.

And it's so prevalent in the trans-community. Largely confined to those who remain attracted to women, unsurprisingly.

I don't think I agree with that, I would say for agender you do need to identify with it, otherwise how would people know. How would they know if you have a 'gender identity' or not. I think people who 'like' gender would usually assume a gender based on how you appear. Or they may ask you.

It's like a political or religious belief though isn't it? You can't tell by looking at me.

But gender has become decoupled from sex-based oppression.

Once you base something on individual feelings you can't then say you only accept one person's feelings on the matter and not another's.

Precisely.

Hence the now prolific terminology that the definition of a woman is 'anyone who says they are'. Neatly sidestepping any kind of evidence, justification, logic or reason.

And it avoids transwomen having to debate the issue when another transwoman has completely contradicted something they have said.

Rabbit. Hole.

Datun "I don't know what the psychology is behind it all. I can't help feeling it comes down to sex.

They view us as the gatekeepers to their happiness and satisfaction. And resentment is a byproduct."

It's an interesting view but I think differently. I think it is a kind of 'Mommie' comples. I am spelling it in an odd way because it is not about real mums/mummys/mothers. It is the prospect that mum didn't love you enough, or as much as she loved dad, or your siblings, she didn't stop the school bully or whatever.

I think of the scene in Skyfall where the villan refers to M (Judi Dench) as Mummy!

Jelly "It's like a political or religious belief though isn't it? You can't tell by looking at me." But you can tell by looking at some people, some religions have a style of dress. Also if I saw you praying in church I might assume you were Christian - or in a synagogue Jewish. You cannot 100% tell by looking but you can sort of 'assume'.

jelly "Once you base something on individual feelings you can't then say you only accept one person's feelings on the matter and not another's."

Yes, I agree.

Italiangreyhound

Yes, to an extent, I agree with that, too. The tantrums when they are thwarted.

On a couple of gender critical fb pages, the oft repeated description is toddlers.

I think another issue is the use of the words woman and man, which are biological rather than gender terms.

Everyone seems to happily agree that biological sex and gender are completely different things. If gender identity is about gender then feelings should be described as feminine and masculine not female and male or man and woman.