If you're non-binary...

[danyellspanyell]

What does it mean? What does it mean to you?

I'm not looking for GC responses to this - the GC take is obvious. I genuinely want to understand what this means.

This came up on my Instagram and the comments were full of people saying they have the same struggle and I honestly can't get my head round what it actually means to be non-binary, particularly if you're happy 'presenting' as a woman (which you biologically are).

What material impact does this non-binary-ness have on your life?

"That's a catch 22. I personally dont believe that changing your appearance to not 'appear'masculine or feminine (I await the 32 posts about what does that mean, because I'm not NB) makes a difference, but some people do. And they're entitled to that view. They're entitled to present and dress how they want and use they as a pronoun."

So....

"I personally dont believe that changing your appearance to not 'appear'masculine or feminine (I await the 32 posts about what does that mean, because I'm not NB) makes a difference, but some people do."

You, like most people on this board, believe that people can present however the fuck they want. In fact, many of us would fight with those people for that right.

"And they're entitled to that view."

And you and most people on this board agree that they can believe what they wish about themselves... Has anyone said anything differently, or have you read that posters disagreeing with what those people believe as being that poster removing that person's right to belief??

"They're entitled to present and dress how they want and use they as a pronoun."

Right. But they have no entitlement to expect any person to validate their beliefs about themselves. They have no entitlement to expect anyone else to 'respect their choice of pronoun' as a right.

"I'm agnostic. I dont spend my time telling people they cant possibly be a Christian because god doesnt exist. I just respect their right to have their views. You know, like most decent humans do."

And this is a false comparison.

Are Christians in the UK demanding that they have any rights other than those currently in the law? And are any Christians demanding that society changes language to suit them?

You then sweep in with yet another emotionally manipulative appeal about 'decent humans'. So, here I and I am sure others on this thread read this and go... yeah? so? That describes us too. We are decent humans and we "I dont spend my time telling people they cant possibly be a Christian because god doesnt exist. I just respect their right to have their views."

"I read a lot on here ahout how people would refuse to use they but I'd be interested to know if these people do it in real life to actual people or just tell them all about how they think their views are wrong etc etc."

Do you honestly believe that people are out there telling people that they think their views are wrong if it has nothing at all to do with a discussion they are having.?

OR

Are you telling us that if directly asked by someone, that you believe that people should lie and obfuscate when asked a direct question if we think that the person holds a different view?

I am trying to understand what it is you are saying, but it does seem to be that your posts are coming from your own prejudiced views about posters on this board than perhaps a deeper understanding of what people believe or not.

I'm leaning into that view myself, @Ereshkigalangcleg

To be "binary" you have to be on one end or another of Mermaids' Barbie to Action Man "gender spectrum. And no one is.

We can accept that some people believe in something and respect their right to that, without having to believe it, or adopt any of its catechisms, ourselves.

Which is why, on a practical level, third spaces, services and categories are the way forward. If you are a Christian you have a church you can pray in; a Muslim, a mosque; a Hindu - a domestic shrine. But nobody has the right, in our society, to force others to adopt any particular religion.

Third spaces and categories resepct people's private beliefs without impinging on others.

I respect people's human right to believe any old nonsense they like. I don't have to respect their belief itself.

I'm wondering if NB is a kind of ontological 'third space' in the gender world.

It does seem so Arabella

yep! It is actually that simple really.

A woman could go around her business in traditionally 'Male' clothing.

A man couldnt

Re your other points, we are not all non binary in that sense. I genuinely think to claim so is offensive to women and the pressure we have by society in terms of our looks. I appreciate many of us no longer give a monkey's of what others think, but not all young women have that luxury.

As we have seen the damage of transition, I personally think that if a young person wants to be NB and that helps them figure their head out for a while, there is absolutely no harm in that.

You might think it's silly from a logistical perspective but how many here can say that if they were told not to do something as teens they went 'yeah okay, you're right'
I certainly didnt but that's another thread

I'm not prejudiced about anyone 😳 I asked a question.

You're talking about emotional manipulation but the argument about society changing is one. FWIW, your point isnt right. Christian's or any other faith might not affect the law, but it holds up a lot of our society.

I appreciate the law point and the bigger picture, I really do.

But in answer to your other question yes you are erasing their right to a belief by effectively telling them they don't exist.

Watching 'Nothing Compares' the other night - the Sinead O'Connor biopic, one young commentator suggested that Sinead was 'Non-Binary and Intersectionalist'. ( made me smile) It is the contemporary way of describing someone who rejects certain forms of cultural stereotypes and expectations of their sex.

In Sinead's case - she performatively shaved her head in response to demands she grow it longer. She wore DMs and a leather jacket, rather than a short skirt and heels. She screamed and expressed herself with aggression in her music, even though in person she was very softly spoken and some might say 'feminine'.

The thing, though, was that Sinead embraced being a woman/her femaleness - even as she rejected the long hair feminine tropes. Sinead's mother tried to stamp out and destroy her female organs. Sinead survived, though, and was what she was; which was a woman( and a mother)who went her own way - mostly in rebellion against the oppressions and prejudices suffered by women in Ireland.

https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/busy-0

Is it that you believe that everyone should have their personal belief about themselves respected by all others, meaning that everyone should act towards that person in the way that that person asks?

Is it that you believe a particular group of people should have their personal belief about themselves acknowledged in law like a post modernist belief that whatever that person says they are, they are? And others should not for whatever reason?

What 'rights' enables one person to demand that another respect their personal belief about their identity? And what 'rights' exist that demand that another person validates a person's personal identity?

I am really trying to see where you understand the difference between the right to have a belief and the right to have all other people act with respect that belief's requirements. You say you understand, but I have not seen this in your posts.

That’s the definition of being gender critical. We don’t believe in gender stereotypes.

And young women today like to view this through the gender filter rather than sex. They take away her strength and ferocity and make it into something rather pathetic and performative. She was a blazer not a fashion sheep.

You asked a question? in the post I referenced? Did you? Did I miss the question?

this is the post I referenced.

That's a catch 22. I personally dont believe that changing your appearance to not 'appear'masculine or feminine (I await the 32 posts about what does that mean, because I'm not NB) makes a difference, but some people do. And they're entitled to that view. They're entitled to present and dress how they want and use they as a pronoun.

I'm agnostic. I dont spend my time telling people they cant possibly be a Christian because god doesnt exist. I just respect their right to have their views. You know, like most decent humans do.

I read a lot on here ahout how people would refuse to use they but I'd be interested to know if these people do it in real life to actual people or just tell them all about how they think their views are wrong etc etc.

**

Bottom paragraph apologies I missed the question mark.

It was a genuine question.

I'm really not prejudiced I just have a different view which presumably is allowed.

People can label themselves as non binary - but it doesn't actually mean anything. It doesn't mean 'they are' non binary - if you get my point.

Non binary has nothing to do with the material reality of life on earth - it is a contemporray descriptor for people who want to express themselves in individual ways according to their nature. The thing is we live in a modern liberal society in which most expressions are now tolerated and even fully accepted. All of us are 'non binary' in that we are all a mixture of differnt traits and preferences. None of us is wholly a stereotype.

"Christian's or any other faith might not affect the law, but it holds up a lot of our society."

Please explain by what you mean by this?

Christians are protected under the law as not being discriminated against due to their beliefs. Just like any person under the trans umbrella.

What part of the Christian belief do you think is analogous to this discussion that you brought that into the discussion? Do you think that people should have to call religious leaders by their preferred title? Because in the UK, that is not law. People can choose to, or not.

What is the point of your analogy, please.

You keep moving back to the law and he words and I'm sure youl get on to safe spaces etc soon because you know that's immovable I have not mentioned the law once in my posts.

All I have done is explained what nb means to them, and asked whether people who rubbish it do so in real life practice. I also pointed out that you claim telling other people what they can and cant do isnt okay until it's you (not you personally )doing it. I'm not sure why that's courted so much controversy.

The religious comparison doesn’t work at least not in this country. I’m not aware of any religious group which is demanding people go along with their believes or they’re bigots. Nor that we change our speech to affirm their beliefs. Sure you get Christians saying they wish people wouldn’t take God’s name in vain but in society no one is condemning people who do.

All I have done is explained what nb means to them,

Nope, you've not done that yet, despite me asking you several times if you would.

Of course your view is 'allowed'. So is discussion challenging your view.

If it is genuine question, then my answer is that unless it is a topic under discussion, I don't feel the need to mention it. And frankly, it is hardly a topic that I have to discuss and we have trans and non-binary people come into our home quite often.

When I am directly asked, I explain that while they have the right to their personal opinion about who they are, I also have a right to not change my language to reflect that belief and yet to treat them with courtesy and respect as an individual. Considering I don't use third person pronouns around the person I am referring to, it is not an issue.

The issue, at root, is that people are being conditioned to centre their own feelings in all situations and expect public approval and/or validation for those feelings. And at that the root of that there lies a construction of the self of self identity that is wholly dependent upon that validation and acceptance.

Without public validation or recognition that person ceases to exist - which leaving a gaping existential void; an annihilation. We are living at a time of increasing mental and emotional fragility - and that fragility is being seen as a virtue, rather than as a liability - and is being actively nurtured in people.

Was watching a Peter Boghassian programme yesterday, in which he interviews a woman who had left the church of woke, been cancelled and so on - and in it she describes the fragile mental health of many of her former colleagues, fellow SJWs, and friends, and of how so many were on meds.