Another uncritical gender identity article in the journal Science

[TheBiologyStupid]

Science, the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has been captured for a while, sadly. Here's it's latest uncritical example of gender identity nonsense: www.science.org/content/article/how-astrophysics-helped-me-embrace-my-nonbinary-gender-identity-in-all-its-complexity

I despair for science (more broadly) sometimes...

@NecessaryScene
Words have concrete meanings when it suits, and are self-applied labels when it suits.

Thats a wilful mischaracterisation of what I said. Words have concrete meanings AND they are made up labels. Take for example, “money” or “black hole” or “paracetamol” all are a made up labels with a concrete meanings for a reality.

Even if you think gender identity is similar to a religious belief in spirit animals or crystal healing, it’s best to respect the other persons beliefs insofar as they wish to be treated.

So by the same token, if someone says "don't sit down, my spirit lion doesn't like it", I need to keep standing, even if I really need a seat?

It’s an example of extremist views being applied in society. Obviously gender theory isn’t the only game in town with extremist views that get implemented in society causing harm. This is not a new phenomenon and it’s far less harmful than most times extremism has been implemented in society.

Depends upon the consequences really. I’ll leave that for you to judge in the event such a thing happens to you.

Words have concrete meanings AND they are made up labels.

You missing my point. The question is whether the label has a meaning that can be applied objectively, or is self-applied.

Are "non-binary" or "male" objective labels we can apply, or do they have to be self-applied as "identity"?

You seem to take the position that "non-binary" has to be self-applied, and are saying we're not non-binary on that basis. You can't just figure out what the definition of non-binary is and say that we are.

I will sit down, just like I will say non binary isn't a meaningful designation and no one has a "gender". Interesting that you think there might be "consequences".

Words have concrete meanings AND they are made up labels.

What is the "concrete meaning" of "non binary" gender, as opposed to the made up label, please.

I think this thread will be interesting for lurkers.

Yes. Thanks Eresh for making this clear.

They are one and the same. I’m starting to think you are pretending to have the IQ of an ant. These are basic concepts. The fact that humans NAME realities by making up a label for them and then agreeing on a common definition for the purpose of communication. Caveman points at tall thing and grunts “TREE” , TREE now has concrete meaning of tall thingy with green bits on top, and is also a MADE UP LABEL. Cavewoman grunt yes, TREE now they can communicate. Cavewoman can say “Go Piss Tree not Cave” and voila, caveman know exactly where to piss.

They are one and the same. I’m starting to think you are pretending to have the IQ of an ant. These are basic concepts.

What do the "basic concepts" of man/male gender, woman/female gender and "non binary" gender entail?

What is the "concrete meaning" of "non binary" gender, as opposed to the made up label, please.

I think I can offer a concrete meaning:

A "non-binary" person is someone who believes they have neither a male or female gender identity.

Now, by that definition, we're all non-binary. Unless the label has to be self-applied, as Discovereads seems to insist for some reason. But even if self-applied, we need to have a definition to know whether it applies, and that's one we could use.

(Although in true self-ID world, presumably someone who believes they have a male gender identity could also say they were non-binary?)

But there's a tighter definition we could also use:

A "non-binary" person is a gender ideology practitioner who believes they have neither a male or female gender identity.

That is possibly a more useful definition, as it gets to the core of what non-binary means in practice. A definition that includes everyone is not terribly useful, and it's that very specific minority of people that are being targetted in legislation.

But the important thing to note is that the thing that distinguishes them from the vast majority of population is then NOT the lack of male or female gender identity, but the belief in gender ideology.

And one of the core tenets of gender ideology is that "all non-believers have male or female gender identities, determined by their sex".

But even if self-applied, we need to have a definition to know whether it applies, and that's one we could use.

Yes, exactly, and @Discovereads seems to be coy about providing this.

(Although in true self-ID world, presumably someone who believes they have a male gender identity could also say they were non-binary?)

And indeed many seem to do so, because it seems that "non binary" is a largely meaningless designation that anyone can use about their imagined gender identity.

Sorry bold fail in first Necessary quote

@NecessaryScene
You missing my point. The question is whether the label has a meaning that can be applied objectively, or is self-applied.

That wasn’t your point. If it were you would have asked that question or something like it instead of implying intellectual dishonesty on my part by saying that words have concrete meanings or are labels depending on how it suits my argument.

You’re not discussing this in good faith. So I am done with you.

The sleight of hand here is quite clear.

That wasn’t your point. If it were you would have asked that question

I specifically said "self-applied labels". You chose to start going on about "made up labels".

Don't sit there, Necessary, my spirit lion doesn't like it.

I specifically said "self-applied labels". You chose to start going on about "made up labels".

Actually, correcting that, you did say "made up labels" first, but I wasn't paying attention to that because it was a non-sequitur.

I quoted your

Whether or not you are also NB is for you to decide. Of course it’s a made-up label most words are made up labels. Doesn’t make it any less real.

I was focussing on the first sentence, about it being "for you to decide" - ie a self-applied label.

The follow-on sentences I didn't cut were were irrelevant to my main point about "is being NB an objective fact about someone or something they declare about themselves."

What makes an 18 year old starting Maths at university this October non-binary, but the female professor who's made Head of Dept against all odds in a male-dominated environment boring old binary?

😂😂

The thing about words is, yes they are arbitrary labels, yes they’re made up, but they only work because there’s a general agreement about what they mean, even though that can of course change over time, the general agreement is still a fundamental part of it working. There’s no point cavepeople talking about piss and trees without having agreed ascribed meanings so that they can communicate effectively.

if one person then says, “i’m special because I can breathe, I’m a Breather” then the others are going to think, Huh what, we can all breathe, wtf do you mean.

if everyone does it’s not special. So to claim to be special, and to have a special word for what you claim to be, you’re going to need a definition. The Breather isn’t going to get away with saying “well words are just arbitrary labels you know” while at the same time considering themselves special and better at breathing than everyone else and expecting others to respect that. And they should be challenged and asked wtf they mean and expected to give a clear explanation. Otherwise you’re just saying anyone can make stuff up about themselves and gain power and status from it.

That’s exactly what’s happening now with gender identity, but it’s also why it’s being challenged. If you can’t define what makes someone with an NB identity different from me, other than just their internal beliefs, then you’re abandoning the normal use of language.

Non-binary is a made-up concept, and it is being pushed onto other people unwillingly, like a belief in god being pushed upon atheists.

Being a girl / women today in Afghanistan is a reality which means that girls and women in Afghanistan have to cover from head to toe, are denied access to work, education and healthcare, and cannot leave their home alone.

Do you acknowledge the difference @Discovereads?

Whether or not you are also NB is for you to decide. Of course it’s a made-up label most words are made up labels. Doesn’t make it any less real.

So what is the definition of NB? You said that we need to agree on a common definition for the purpose of communication.

You've told us several times in this thread what NB is not. Now tell us what it is. If it's real, it should be easy to provide a definition which is comprehensible to those who don't subscribe to gender ideology as well as those who do.

The 'non-binary' person in my work place has been given the approval of the SMT to push their beliefs on colleagues and students as if they were facts, and to push for us all to add pronouns to our email signatures (No, Thank, You).

'They' don't seem to know (or if they know, don't care) about the findings in the interim Cass review that changing childen's pronouns is not a neutral act and can lead to medical transition, which I find dangerous and worrying when we work with young people. (I have shared this info with SMT, but it's an uphill battle to get them to act on it, as we are Stonewall affiliated, also largely due to the 'non-binary' colleague.