They/Them pronouns but gender conforming

[WorkEvent]

Can anyone explain to me why someone would choose (or not choose?) to identify as ‘non binary’ but then outwardly appear to conform to the gender stereotypes of their biological sex? Like, what part of you is non binary if you are a biological woman who dresses in traditionally feminine clothing? Surely in order for this to be ‘a thing’ you have to buy into some nonsense about male and female brains being different? Isn’t this idea inherently sexist? Am I missing something?

No, you miss my point. If gender is social, but the current social idea of gender is that it is not social, it’s not true, is it? The social construct is a false one. Like believing in the Aether, or magic, or that sun is pulled by a chariot of the gods, or that women have one more rib than men, or that malaria is caused by bad odours. Those are all social constructs but we know they are also false. Believing gender is an innate “identity” in the soul, is a false social construct, since gender is actually a set of social scripts to “conform” to and not an ineffable presence.

What you are arguing is that gender is performative (this comes from Butler’s use of Austin’s performatives - parts of speech that only work as forms of social performance). Butler used this to argue that gender was essentially (that is, completely or only) performativity - it only exists inasmuch as it is performed socially as a construct and there is no underlying non-social essence.

That is completely at odds with the idea that gender is an inner psychological phenomenon, part of a soul, biologically innate in some people’s minds so that “trans brain scans” can reveal it, or in some other way a non-social phenomenon. You cannot have social construct and not a social construct at the same time. “Construct” literally means built out of (from construere). If what you meant is “bits of it are social and bits of it aren’t” then that’s a different thing; but that then isn’t a “social construct”.

Butler herself has completely gone back on her original argument now because gender activists don’t like the idea of gender as performativity, but somehow that doesn’t seem to matter…because ineffable, mystified incoherence is the order of the day in gender theology.

Hurrah for the new gender mystics! There is no logic but a set of self-appointed gurus for the gender-religiose to argue about on the internet. You say one thing, try to pin down a term or two; but that is never what they really meant at all….

Judaism and Christianity are both religions with adherents of many ethnicities. My point is that you can’t “tell” what religion someone is based on outward appearances or ethnicity, the same way you cannot “tell” what gender someone is based on outward appearances or sex.

( No idea how that could be offensive, unless by saying that “being Jewish is to do with ethnicity” you think only one (stereotypical) ethnicity can be Jewish? Of so, I’m a bit shocked you are seemingly unaware that Asian (Chinese, Indian, ME), African and Latinx Jews exist).

@theclangersarecoming

I may be missing your points as much as you seem to be missing mine!

What you are arguing is that gender is performative
Not really, I’m arguing gender is both innate and performative. Why? Because we all have filters. We all choose which parts of ourselves to perform in front of the eyes of society. Therefore, we are never only the sum of our performance. There is always an innate piece, an inner life, that we keep to ourselves. We also at times choose to perform contrary to how we actually feel, because society expects it of us. So performance and inner self do not even have to match.

the same way you cannot “tell” what gender someone is based on outward appearances or sex.

Tell me then why so many other advocates of the gender theology say the exact opposite? And how can it then be a social construct, if it’s never articulated or expressed socially but is entirely about the “inner life” 😂

What a total chaotic mess all these “gender ideas” are.

Do they say the exact opposite? I haven’t seen anyone requiring that all people must perform their gender. Again, you’re being very binary about it. Gender is both innate and performative. It’s not entirely inner life and never socially expressed. There’s always a bit of both going on.

The more I read these arguments, and the more confusing they become, the more I wonder, what on earth are you saying is "gender"? What's your stable definition that supports all of the arguments you're advancing?

Except that if it’s a social construct it isn’t innate. That’s the entire point. And your idea that it is, is a social construct of its own, by your own logic.

The whole point about the idea of innate self is that it is not social. Yet you want to argue that it is. You can’t have both radical social constructivism and idealism at the same time - they simply aren’t compatible without admitting that some kind of religious or philosophical belief precisely in the non-social marries them together.

Now, you can do it with a God or you can do it with animism or the transcendent psyche or the transcendental imperative or the collective unconscious or brain sex or something else, if you want; but you can’t just pretend two incompatible things are true at the same time.

That’s where it’s either partly not a social construct; or the social construct is a false one.

And where have you got your idea of gender from? Is there any evidence of it, or is it just what you think?

I didn’t know how to articulate it until you did - thank you! One ms to another=)

Societal ostracising can occur for women who do not do usual female designated things like attend mum and baby groups, do parent-teacher things at school, show interest in stereotypically female conversational topics when socialising, and so on.

What a load of codswallop. Women typically talk widely about many things depending on who they are with and the situation.
Who does the 'social ostracising?'
Who decreed that a woman must prove
herself via mother and baby groups?
Is the teacher at parent's night less of a woman than the Mum who attends to find out about her child?
You don't appear to know anything about women in real life.

Well, quite @Whatsnewpussyhat

This is absolutely it. One of the offensive parts of the trans ideology is men who declare they are in "girl mode" today and are going to spend the day wearing a dress and baking (or cleaning).

I'm not even making this example up - I've seen a ton of tweets exactly along these lines. It's fetishising what it means to be a woman, and pushing us back to stereotypical male/female genders that were prevalent back in the 1950s.

While I have my reservations about some elements of trans ideology (men in single sex spaces eg), I don't really care how someone wants to identify. Whatever label you want to put on it, we're all either men or women and that's an immutable and irrefutable scientific basis. From there on, it doesn't matter. You're a bloke but want to wear a dress and lipstick? Crack on, happy days. You're a woman and want to shave your hair off, wear a man's suit to the office and play golf with the boys on your weekends? Good on you. It doesn't matter. Express your identity however you want, regardless of your biology. This is where society needs to place its focus, the acceptance of individual expressions of identity while still recognising that biology doesn't change.

And it's why I struggle deeply with non-binary, more so than I do with trans. You don't have to embrace gendered stereotypes to be a woman or a man. Androgyny has been around forever, and we didn't need a non-binary label back then to be a gender non-conforming woman. As for the men, look at Harry Styles. Regularly rocks up wearing women's clothing, sometimes even carries a handbag. Wears nail varnish or makeup. Women still drool over him. No one gives a shit that his presentation is very fluid. But he's still a man.

I don't understand the point of non-binary. It feels affected and attention-grabbing. Courtney Stodden is an excellent example of it all. Now identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns but whose image is a heavily sexualised female with tiny clothing, massive fake boobs and provocative poses etc. I don't really care about any of that, but I fail to see how these two things align. As I said, it's about being relevant, attention seeking and in the case of teens, typically it's about rebellion.

Except that if it’s a social construct it isn’t innate. That’s the entire point.

No, you are mistaken about what a social construct is. Of course a social construct can be made about the meaning of what it is to be a self aware, thinking human to include their gender. What do you think all the philosophies and religions are? They are all social constructs regarding spirituality, which is innate. Even our definitions of mental illnesses are social constructs outlining how a human should not think and feel…..(which changes over time, by culture and by sex).

The whole point about the idea of innate self is that it is not social. Yet you want to argue that it is.

I haven’t argued that at all. Yes the innate self is not the social self, but that doesn’t preclude there being social constructs regarding both the innate and social selves.

where have you got your idea of gender from?
Gender includes gender identity (innate), gender expression (performance), gender roles and stereotypes (conformance or nonconformance), and so on. The definitions are all there for you to read, but it’s quite clear that gender as a social construct applies to both the inner self and the social self.

Gender includes gender identity, gender expression, gender roles and stereotypes. The definitions are all widely published.

@SammyScrounge
You don't appear to know anything about women in real life.

Does half a century lived experience as a woman count? Or not?
And I don’t see the point of nitpicking stereotypes as “codswallop”. Of course stereotypes are codswollop, but I was asked by a pp “what are these female stereotypes” and I answered the question. The answers have nothing to do with what I think.

Androgyny has been around forever, and we didn't need a non-binary label back then to be a gender non-conforming woman.

But back then people would say they were androgynous instead of saying they were nonbinary. Both mean the exact same thing. The trans ideology isn’t really anything new. It’s simply new labels for old ideas.

My only complaint about trans ideology is how it is being presented as if it were something new and revolutionary. That the generation coming up with new labels and new terminology have somehow fought a great civil rights battle. It’s really just changing the window dressing. Like if we were to change Valentines Day to Lovers Day, or rename Earth Day to Climate Change Day and then pretend we’ve done something new and wonderful.

Gender includes gender identity, gender expression, gender roles and stereotypes. The definitions are all widely published.

In other words, "gender" can mean whatever any individual wants it to mean. What you're actually talking about is simply personality and preferences. Which is fine, but this isn't something to use as the basis of a reordering of society.

Sigh, no gender is a social construct. It means whatever society wants it to mean. As in you need a collective agreement, it’s not up to the individual. The individual only gets to decide where they fit within the social construct of gender. I’m not talking about personality or preferences. And there is no reordering of society, it’s simply a re-labelling of what has always been there.

If a male person's "gender" means they can be placed in a women's prison, and there are women prisoners who object, then I suppose those prisoners aren't part of this "society" you're talking about because their wants don't seem to count.

By the way, this particular societal reordering of housing male prisoners in women's prisons according to their declaration of inner essence hasn't always been there.

And there is no reordering of society, it’s simply a re-labelling of what has always been there.

And what has always been there is sex. The sex binary of female and male. Everything else is transient: religions, personalities, fashions,ideologies.

But back then people would say they were androgynous instead of saying they were nonbinary. Both mean the exact same thing.

Except they don’t actually mean the same thing. They are different words that mean different things. Androgyny did not mean, for example, something totally of the “inner life” that was not evident visually — as you argued nonbinary gender is upthread.

In one post you claim that gender is akin to “spirituality, which is innate”. Except that many of us would say “spirituality” is a social construction in itself, not something innate at all. Where does it exist — is it ineffable, mystical? A delusion of the brain? Evidence of transcendence? An illusion? Lots of people don’t feel “spiritual” at all.

But it’s telling that this for you is what gender is equivalent to - something that is quasi-religious or mystical but also similarly debatable in terms of its existence. You must know that this isn’t a settled definition of “gender” (and in fact most gender ideologues argue differently about social vs innate) — but just one you personally happen to like.

But you tell other people off about it as if your personal definition of gender is a fact - which it isn’t. Just as I could say that “spirituality” is not some kind of innate mystical transcendent feeling, but simply an effect of the social construction of religion. And someone else might think it’s evidence of the true transcendent existence of god. We just disagree with you: so you can cut out the lecturing of others about your personal brand of gender theory which is just that - your own opinion.

Does anyone else get the sense that in the posts by Discovereads above, the meaning of "gender" shifts about depending on the argument they're advancing at any point?

Tends to happen in any thread with that poster no matter the topic.

I'll leave to others to try to have meaningful engagement with them. For me it's clearly a waste of time.