Could feminism and non binary be the same thing?

[cupofdecaf]

I'd consider myself a feminist moderate GC.

I've recently met a non binary person. It got me thinking. Could I just simply reject all gender stereotypes and be non binary?

I believe that gender is a social construct. Sex is a biological fact.

I'm a woman and mother. I doubt anyone looks at me and thinks I could be or identify as a man. I do wear men's clothes a fair bit (husbands cloths mostly because they're very comfortable).

I like the idea of rejecting the social expectations of gender. My question is would that make me non binary and if not what label would be appropriate.

NB I don't feel like I need a label but we're in a culture of labels. Also I doubt it would change a single thing but I'm curious.

But I think people are missing how much harder it is to reject gender than it was a couple of decades ago - and how much more egotistical

Rather than seeing none binary as reinforcing gender , see it as an ( flawed ) attempt to escape its confines

A child given three options - male female or nb is more likely to chose nb ( because then you have a tribe) than to reject needing a box to fit in , and for children having boxes does help - the transition from the family box to their own outside tribe is a lot of what teenage years are about

Yes, this! I can sympathise with women who choose to try to identify out of womanhood, but my respect is reserved for those who stay and fight.

Non-binary gender identity people are so, so close to being gender critical but they sadly hit the post.

At the end of the day, you're either a male non-binary person or a female non-binary person.

A male non-binary person has as much in common with a feminist as a sheep has to a sheep dog.

To be non binary you are acknowledging the existence of a binary.

There's a lot of similarity between a feminist and a (biologically female) nonbinary person.

Both will look at the way culture/media/society present "THIS IS WHAT A WOMAN IS" and respond "If that is a woman, I am not one"

However, neither can stop there, and there the similarity ends.

The nonbinary person is saying "but I have to accept that culture/media/society are correct in their description of what it is to be a woman, therefore I must declare myself to be something other" - leaving the sexist definitions unchallenged.

Whereas a feminist will say "However, I clearly am a woman and therefore culture/media/society is wrong about all these descriptors of what a woman fundamentally is" and will hopefully have the courage to join the fight against such stereotypes.

Your last paragraph is so true and it's what we must try to change.

We HAVE to make 'gender critical' a fourth, known and realistic option.

There is now a lot of non-binary surgery.

Basically it's for young people who want to maintain child-like bodies and not develop any secondary sexual characteristics.

Too many children are now scared of puberty and attempting to opt out of it.

I would have more sympathy for how you characterise non-binary as a "flawed attempt to escape the confines" [of gender], if it wasn't policed so vigorously, and as fiercely as other gender identity stuff is.

From enforced pronoun fields and declarations, to certain of my friends insisting I remember to ask if they are 'she' or 'they' on any given day, to the protracted legal efforts to put X markers on passports (instead of the M and F that all humans fit into), to the non-binary categories in marathons which are only being won by male non-binaries. Plus this week's nonsense of the men disrupting the women in tech event in the US which was open to non-binary.

The fact is you said my position was "arrogant" when I said I just wanted to be left alone to live gender-free!

I've got religious friends from all sorts of backgrounds, not one of them has ever challenged me on my lack of interest in following any religion. We're friends and I respect their beliefs and right to practice in a pluralistic society, and that's good enough. Why can't people invested in gender identities extend that sort of respect to everyone else?

I honestly think there is more in common there than people would like to assume.

I've heard NB people explain that in their mind the gendered stereotypes, gender roles etc are ludicrous, for 99% of interactions it makes no difference what your sex (or gender) is - only really for medical issues and sexual partners - and identifying as NB is a way to essentially say "What's it to you? Why does it matter anyway?" They think that this is unpalatable to a lot of people because many people are wedded to gendered norms and feel that it IS important to know if somebody is male or female when having daily interactions with them.

I think most feminists would agree totally with the premise that your sex should not matter in matters of e.g. work, fashion choices, friendships, driving licence and so on.

Where the disagreement lies is that the NB/genderfluid movement thinks that the way to change this and prove that sex/gender is irrelevant is to actively challenge gender norms and rules by saying well - why can't I (a bio male) be female? Why do I need to specify at all, I'm NB. My understanding is that this is seen as one step in the process of "expanding ideas and definitions of gender". With the end goal being that gender isn't really even a thing, much like nobody thinks that blood type means anything relevant most of the time and wouldn't even think to ask someone what their blood type is, except in a medical situation.

Whereas old school/radical feminists say hang on, but it does matter because sexism and patriarchy exists. Although it makes sense that sex should not matter for interactions outside of medicine and sex, in reality it does, and that is the whole problem. We should not obscure that by confusing things with new titles (NB) or by changing definitions of what words mean (male/female being identities rather than biological reality). We actually need clear language and definitions in order that these patterns can be discussed, studied and so on.

I think there's also a clash in that old school/RFs can see the NB stuff as a load of new fangled nonsense that doesn't make sense and perpetuates the problem - which can come across as offensive to NB people. But the main thing is frustration that "the gender crowd" want to obfuscate language, as they see the most urgent issue as making sexism more visible and clear to everyone, seeing that as the way to change things, and they think that the whole "expanding gender roles" approach gets in the way of this.

And the gender crowd misunderstand the GC feminists' desire to insist on biological language, as they see this as essentialist and trapping people in roles.

I wonder how much of it is what they actually want, and how much of it is because they want to fit into their chosen identy?

Its odd that people who chose to be outside of the norm, all seem to want to conform to the same look?

Or maybe they want to be the opposite of something - they associate women with breast implants, therefore the opposite is mastectomies.

No because you fundamentally reject the stereotypes. Non-binary says they exist and just pretends they don't apply.

I see it this way, too.
Also, stating that one is non-binary implies there is a binary.
(Talking about gender here, not sex.)

The thing that today's nonbinary 20 year olds will gradually come to realise over the next 30 years is that there are male nonbinary people and female nonbinary people and somehow after 30 years the male nonbinary people have achieved the promotions and accolades and were given every opportunity to advance in their field of employment, and the female nonbinary people have generally lower outcomes, although still having some successes obviously but with more instances of having been passed over for promotion a few times by employers wondering if they might go off pregnant at any moment, or not promoting them because they have been off on maternity leave and aren't as up-to-date as other team members, and the little lags here and there are cumulative and you don't always spot them except in hindsight.

They may at that point invent a movement to liberate all female people from patriarchal discrimination and oppression. I wonder what they will call it?

I think there's also a clash in that old school/RFs can see the NB stuff as a load of new fangled nonsense that doesn't make sense and perpetuates the problem - which can come across as offensive to NB people.

I think the real clash is that we can recognise it from our youth. Most girls at some point in their lives dont want to be seen as female or just a girl, or be constrained, and every generation finds a way to do that.

As older women, we can see the downsides, and see the men using the movement and their manipulation. Young women dont like to be told this by older women, so see us as offensive.

Its just scary because the world has changed and the stakes are getting higher. No other women rights movement need cross sex hormones and mastectomies.

I've never really understood what non binary people identify with/as tbh despite talking to two 'non binary' teens who tried to explain it. I'm not even sure they knew themselves.

But surely you have to believe in gender to identify as non binary? I think gender is a load of bollocks so 🤷🏻‍♀️

I've always said I'm essentially the same as non binary with one important difference

I don't need to tell the world about it

And the gender crowd misunderstand the GC feminists' desire to insist on biological language, as they see this as essentialist and trapping people in roles.

Yes, totally missing what 'gender critical' means. The term existed way before the trans agenda came to the fore - it's not about being critical of trans identifying people, it's being critical of gender stereotypes, and their deleterious effects (particularly on women and girls but also on boys and men). Let toys be toys etc.

I hear you.

Except the very concept of non-binary, the logic that is at is foundation is that sex is not binary and they have a gender that, again, relies on sex being defined by stereotypes.

I don't believe that there is any other way to describe it. I am very happy to listen to any person who can come up with a coherent, non-circular definition.

To me, I am not afraid of 'new concepts' at all. I am not sure many people who post on this board are afraid of something 'new'. The issue is that they cannot move it from an ethereal concept to something definable. And having met quite a number of non-binary people, not one of them can discuss it coherently.

And it all relies on everyone having a 'gender'. Even you being 'gender'. You don't seem to be able to be agnostic.

Very much so. And very telling. If someone hears 'women are female' and immediately assumes that's us insisting that female people have to take on sexist gender roles, then that says everything about what they think a woman is.

In my view "non-binary" leans into gender ideology in an unhelpful way. Sex and Gender are the same and always were until a theorist decided to appropriate that language and make gender into a social construct. I do believe that there is such a thing as sexist stereotypes, roles and tropes pertaining to each gender but gender itself is just another way of saying male or female. One can easily reject these stereotypes without stooping to the ridiculous rhetoric of gender ideology. If you are a adult female you are not "non-binary" you are a woman.

Non binary means I'm cooler than the other girls and I don't need to bother fighting for women's rights.

Hmm. I think the current wave of feminism that we are in is all about demanding equality and the same opportunists and treatment regardless of your sex. It is saying that society has clear gender roles - based on sex; and these gender roles are biased and do not benefit women. As of this, gender roles should either

1. not exist.
2. exist but celebrated - aka no unconscious bias please.

However I don’t believe feminism denies gender or shy’s away from it. I personally think feminism (even the name alone) is heavily rooted in protecting or advocating for anyone that identifies as female and pushing women’s rights. Until we live in a world where this is no longer needed, feminism should remain a movement that fights for this.

Whereas I see non-binary as being slightly more indifferent. You are not advocating for either or gender, you are completely stripping away the idea of gender and you are choosing to live your life (or advocate for) as your “personality” or “gender less” and without having to answer to any gender “norms” emposed by your sex. It is an internal choice - whilst feminism is very much about changing external systems. Being non-binary is a choice (excluding alias) - you are choosing not to identify a male or female/ man/woman. Whereas anyone can become a feminist and choose to support women’s rights regardless of the label they choose for themselves.

Don’t get me wrong, the non-binary movement says a strong message.

BUT

You can be non-binary and feminist, but not all feminists are non-binary. They are not the same movement.

As a woman that is proud to be labelled a “woman”. I can be super masculine at times. I’m not the girliest. Pretty masculine in my approach to career and life but feminine in my personality. But the point is I should be able to live my life as me. Regardless of the labels that I or society want to pin on me. Both these movements advocate this but are not the same at all.

No it couldn't. Feminism is about women.

Did it? That's news to me and I find it surprising because I've been on the MN feminist boards talking about this stuff since before all the trans issues came in. I don't remember ever seeing the term gender-critical before then.

It's a term I associate solely with scepticism about the trans/genderfluid/non-binary type movement. But if I've used it wrongly then fair enough.