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?

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.

“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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

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.

'I'm GC'appears in every other post.

And yet we see NB identified men playing in women's sport.

The thing is , nobody can win.

If someone physically transitions, then theres uproar about damage to bodies, drugs etc etc.

If they don't transition but identify as trans, that creates the arguments about where they go.

If they say okay I'm Nb and would like to be referred to as they, it's apparently offensive to women and nobody can possibly change their language.

People might as well say 'no you're a woman and that's it snd do on here regularly while trying to claim you cant tell anyone else how to think

That's a completely separate argument and a trump card and you know it.

I find gc and some branches of feminism performative, as I do certain views about same sex marriages etc

Unless it's in a direct discussion ahout same spaces, sports etc, if someone wants to identify as NB and refer to themselves as they, irs really nothing to do with you.

I'm not saying there arent some performative trans/gay/NB people. But you get performative in all walks of life. Women are not infallible and always in the right.

'Thinking' has nothing to do with your sex, though.

A person can be in a coma, or even dead, and their sex remains the same.

Reach a discussion? What do you think we are having here?

I asked for your explanation of 'the whole point' of NB, and that would be good to hear, if you are able to articulate it.

If we are talking in existential or philosophical terms, though - being and nothingness; essence precedes form, and so on - then 'indulgent' is not threatening - it is merely descriptive.

Any specific 'difficulties' attached to adopting trans and NB identities are wholly self inflicted.

What is easier about being a woman/female?

The issue is, I think, that for some people simple questions or critiques of identity concepts are in themselves existential threats.

Wait, there is a physical process for becoming NB?

Are we back to making our bodies align with an imaginary genderfeel, again?

Making reality fit our imagination.

I am told I am gender non conforming - does that make me non binary??? I have no idea

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.

I just avoid people who use surprising pronouns. I don't go out of my way to be rude.

Nobody changes sex.

That's the whole point.

Personally I don't 'identify' as 'a feminist' or as 'GC' - they are descriptors that others might use to articulate that a woman is critical of certain kinds of stuff.

I agree, how someone identifies themself is their own business - and has nothing to do with anyone else - until that identity becomes a demand on others. That is the issue.

The world is arranged according to commonly held concepts and categories - without which there would be dysfunction. If someone does not feel/think/align in those ways that is their issue/perogative - but the world will continue to run and operate along those lines, and we have to accept that - for the sake of our own mental health.

Sorry, you cant claim re your earlier post that you are having a genuine discussion and interested in views and then claim trans difficulties are self inflicted. that is callous.

I agree that it's a catch 22. My feeling is that the whole project is itself a 'catch 22', or more accurately, meaningless.

It is a curious thing to do - to try to crystallise an identity that proclaims itself as beyond identity. And that's why Queer theory eats itself, in the end. Because as part of its relentless destructive quest, it logically has to destroy itself, too.

See Derrida et al - if 'nothing is absolute' - then that statement contradicts itself and vanishes in a puff of smoke, Jack.

🙄