Confused on the concept of non binary

[ireallycantthinkofaname]

Please be nice, i am not the sharpest knife in the box under normal circumstances and I'm running on about 6 hrs sleep over the past week at the minute.....

But something I've been trying and failing to understand re. the concept of 'non binary' in the 'gender movement' (or whatever it is/ought to be called) is that on the one hand, people who subscribe to that philosophy are saying they reject the traditional idea of explicit male/femaleness (because if "trans women are women" then they have swapped for instance). But then if you have 'non binary' individuals isn't that pretty much saying oh yes, actually there is a binary - and some people don't subscribe to it?

I do acknowledge sex =/= gender but not all NB people are intersex/have DSD

<<thoroughly discombobulated>>

So no males in female sports then? you seem to be agreeing with me which is great but odd if you can't see the distinct categories of male and female.

But there is a definition of a female body

The idea that it would be possible to find a single definition which would capture all female people (or that one has been found) is a belief, like a belief in god or heaven.

I think you can choose a set of criteria, and call people who meet the criteria female if you want, but you would never get everyone to agree, and any criteria you set would mean some people who had only ever been considered female (nothing to do with trans), would be unhappy that you wanted to recategorise them to male.

Nonsense, its not a belief. It's a matter of science and there is a standard working definition. Why are we being asked to pretend there isn't?

In rare circumstances some people who have DSDs can take longer to identify their sex. But they still have a sex, and their existence doesn't break the criteria that is used or require that we pretend we no longer know how to classify people (and all other mammals!) into one sex or the other.

Furthermore, if all humans lost the ability to have higher order thoughts and became as intelligent as monkeys, we would still know who was male and who was female. Reproduction requires it, and human beings (and all other mammals) have managed it for tens of thousands of years.

Because some people believe there is an ultimate definition of a female body (a female essence)

NOBODY has mentioned "female essences" except you.

Please don't post here.

People in a closed Facebook group have a right to privacy and posting their thoughts on a board that has already called NB people narcissist is not nice.

No one here is going to change their opinion and posting someone's thought who can not defend themselves is very cruel.

We both know they will be mocked here and if anyone on this thread is truly interested they can talk to NB people instead of posting on a board primarily filled with straight women.

I know that some animals are dogs and some definitely are not without believing in 'dog essence'.

'Essence' isn't how people categorize the world. Someone's been having you on.

Nor does the existence of borderline cases mean that anything might or might not be a dog. Some things still definitely are not.

I am trying to think this through for myself:

1. I was told, as a child, that I was a girl and this was clearly based on my body being female. There were things that then applied to me because of this category and did not apply to boys. Some of these were what I would now deem as discrimination on the basis of sex. There was also steering by some aspects of the culture which tried to push me into the approved behavioural categories for girls which now don't seem to be necessary but were sexist.
2. As an adult, I have been told that I am a woman, because of my sex and age. I can now clearly tell that there are social norms, roles, and stereotypes applied to my sex, many of which I would love to get rid of. I do not identify with them at all.
3. The gender identity approach argues that if I accept the label 'woman', then I possess an abstract gender identity not based on living as a female human being in a sexist culture, but on some unrelated inner feeling. This feeling, I have been told in this thread, may have no relationship to how I might dress or act, so that I could be, in theory, extremely feminine and choose retrogressive female gender roles for myself, and yet I might still identify as nonbinary.
4. This is extremely confusing, first, because I don't believe that I possess this inner feminine gender identity not based on 'lived experience' as a female adult human being, second, because it seems to make the label 'nonbinary' in practice devoid of any information that anyone else needs to know so there would seem to be no need to have special pronouns for that identity, and, third, it seems to make feminism almost impossible in all sorts of rather obvious ways, starting with the fact that someone's nonbinary identity assigns all others to supposed comfort with binary sex stereotypes.
5. But most of all, this change means that we would then have no way of simply expressing what sex we are, even though sexism and misogyny are concepts which are based on our sex and/or how others view it. And fighting those concept is almost impossible if we can't fight sexist gender roles, rules, and stereotypes.
6. So, on the whole, this is a regressive trend which implies that any female person desiring the loosening of rigid gender roles and norms and stereotypes would have to transition into at least the nonbinary category, because those roles and norms and stereotypes have now taken the place of sex in how we are expected to categorise people. Well, at least how we are expected to categorise female people. Male people are pretty much left alone in this so-called culture war.

The idea that it would be possible to find a single definition which would capture all female people (or that one has been found) is a belief, like a belief in god or heaven.

In systematics (and this kind of falls under systematics) you look for the absolute minimum requirements necessary to define a group. Like if you define mammals your definition has to be basic enough (life birth, warm blooded, hair, lactation) to encompass tigers and naked mole rats and elephants but it isn't necessary to be able to picture a tiger or a naked mole rat or an elephant based on this definition if you've never seen one of them. It's the same for woman, the type of human who makes large gametes (with the usual proviso wrt DSDs), that is all that is required to define a woman, beyond that anything goes, tall, short, large boobs, flat, long hair, short hair, play football, wear pink, don't wear pink, whatever, , as long as you make, made, or would have made eggs, you're a woman. It's as simple as that.

If you’re having to say someone you think is a woman, is a woman, because they would meet your criteria if they were a different person, then your criteria doesn’t work.

You have a belief though. So, I’m not expecting you to believe what I’m saying, and this would go round in circles if I tried to explain further.

It's not a belief, and you have seized upon one word and made it do a lot of heavy lifting that wasn't intended. A female body with ovaries that don't work is still a female body, is all that means.

No @Peasandsweetcorns I'm a scientist, specifically a biologist, and the definition of woman is not a belief it is a scientific fact. You can obfuscate all you like, evolution doesn't give the tiniest bit of shit about your essences.
However, it is Wednesday evening and I'm going dancing.

Essentialism: “a belief that things have a set of characteristics which make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression”. (Oxford dictionary of English)

It doesn’t matter if you have beliefs, or who you think is male or female. I’m just pointing out that you have a belief, and that it isn’t shared by everyone. It’s nothing to do with trans people or gender identity.

@Peasandsweetcorns You seem to be saying that it's impossible to define the characteristics shared by male or female humans (or animals), and what makes males different from females. Is that right?

Assuming I have understood you correctly, can you explain how reproduction works with your world view?

If I've misunderstood, can you explain how reproduction works with your world view anyway?

I’m just saying that it’s impossible to come up with a definition of an essential set of characteristics which all males have, or which all females have. Some people believe you can (essentialism). I’m saying you can only choose criteria and categorise people using the criteria you’ve chosen. Reproduction works the same either way.

I’m just saying that it’s impossible to come up with a definition of an essential set of characteristics which all males have, or which all females have.

You may not be able to come up with a definition of male and female, fortunately evolutionary biologists have done.

But many definitions we accept in ordinary lives (age, race, degree of light vs. dark) have fuzzy or ambiguous borderline areas, and they are still useful and nobody argues that the definition itself should be scrapped because of this fuzziness.

Sex is no different in this sense.

I never said it wasn’t useful to categorise things, or that sex was different.

It's interesting that many on here believe nonbinary to be a trend and teenage rebellion, yet decide to object to it and mock as though that will somehow change things.

In my experience teens are much more likely to do something if a bunch of middle aged adults tell them not to.

I think if anyone feels confused about their identity or is questioning it because they somehow feel different, it's probably best to meet them with compassion.

imagine it's quite scary to not feel connected or comfortable in your body due to it's sex.

it may be part of many more issues like autism, depression, sexual abuse... Not all but there are links.

I hardly think calling an entire group of people narcissists is helpful.

For a board that doesn't like labels narcissist seems to get thrown around quite a bit.

Someone on here said they are nonbinary. It would have been nice to see a conversation happen where both sides listened.

I don't imagine many queer people are on mumsnet and willing to answer questions.

We can classify people into two groups. Those who produce large gametes and those who produce small gametes. Some people, because of a DSD or some other medical condition, will not produce any gametes, but their body will still be of the type which would normally produce small gametes or of the type which would normally produce large gametes. We call the large gamete producers (and those with the same body type but who produce no gametes) female, and the small gamete producers (and those with the same body type but who produce no gametes) male.

This is the system which people have always used to categorise male and female humans (and other mammals and many other animals).

What is your objection to this and why? And what do you propose as a better system of classification?

There’s no such thing. There are 2 sexes and an infinite number of personality types. That’s it.

But many definitions we accept in ordinary lives (age, race, degree of light vs. dark) have fuzzy or ambiguous borderline areas...

Sex IS different. It's MUCH less fuzzy than those examples. It's one of the least fuzzy categorisations we have.

If you want to classify people like that, then classify people like that. You’ll find you disagree with the way some people have been classified, but that’s just the way of things. I don’t propose anything. I just recognise people classify things differently, and will never all agree with each other. It’s just life.

There’s a difference between not agreeing with people and refusing to accept biological reality.