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>>

None of that has got anything to do with anything that's being discussed here about non-binary identities.

Like I’ve said previously, sometimes people who’ve had these experiences identify as nonbinary as a result of the experiences they’ve had. That’s why nonbinary identity is also relevant in the context of DSDs.

Are you talking about people who actually know their arse from their elbow as regards to DSDs disagreeing? Or a professor of genetics and a hospital porter? The knowledge base (because we are talking knowledge not faith) of the people involved is relevant. Do two professors of relevant fields disagree?

That's such a specific interpretation of "non-binary" though that really only applies to someone who discovers there was or is some confusion about their actual physical sex. Who may have been brought up socially thinking they were one sex but then later discovers they are the opposite sex. It's specific to people with those very rare DSDs that historically have been badly managed. I'd expect that going forwards that the numbers of people in that situation are reduced to virtually no one.

So, none of that is what people who are utterly unambiguous wrt their sex, mean when they talk about "non-binary". They're not claiming they have a DSD and have experienced some confusion or ambiguity around their sex.

What do you mean by male and female here?

You've told us that in your world there is no male or female, there's just random classifications based on nothing or essences or stereotypes or something. And we can't classify people as male or female according to reproductive function (as we always have done) because a tiny number of people have DSDs. This apparently makes it meaningless to categorise anyone else by sex.

So a tiny proportion of the tiny proportion of people who have DSDs at some point decide to identify as non binary. We're probably down to about 3 people in the entire world that this applies to (or maybe one or none).

And because of this, we're supposed to believe that male and female sexes don't exist. Even though the only reason we are all here now is because of sexual reproduction.

Yes, how about we reserve the concept of non-binary for people in that position and everyone else decides to stop being slaves to oppressive stereotypes and just let people be themselves without the need for any grand identity statements and corruption of language (at vast expense to the oppressed majority).

You've told us that in your world there is no male or female

I haven’t said that. I’ve said there is no essential set of characteristics shared by all female people, and vice versa. That’s all. There are still male and female; they aren’t meaningless, and you can classify people how you like.

It’s just a different philosophical belief to essentialism.

What do the words male and female mean in this world view? If you can't answer then the words are meaningless and if it's a circular answer...Still meaningless. Genuinely interested.

It’s literally science. And the basis of the continuation of human life. You can pretend not to believe in it if you’d like, but you will look a bit silly.

I’ve said there is no essential set of characteristics shared by all female people

What do you mean by "female people" in this sentence?

@Peasandsweetcorns can I ask what your philosophical approach is towards scientific categorisation?

Just to clarify, when you say "female people" you are obviously grouping some people together as female, but you say they don't share a set of characteristics. Surely the characteristic they all share is that they are all female. So we just need a definition of female and we're done.

My view is that you can pick a set of criteria and classify people as female, but that there is no ultimate definition since I don’t believe in a female essence (set of essential characteristics), and an ultimate definition would need to be based on a female essence.

I’m not sure what you are asking? Pick criteria; classify things accordingly?

There is no “female essence” (not sure why you keep going on about this).

Just bodies that are designed around the production of large gametes.

Just a single biological function that defines being the female of the species.

Or are you Judith Butler and I can claim my £5?

My view is that you can pick a set of criteria and classify people as female, but that there is no ultimate definition

I think you are misunderstanding what a "definition" would need to be. One element needs to be correct and common to all females, that their body is more organised around the production of one gamete than the other. Only two gametes are possible, both are needed for reproduction.

Snap @SabrinaThwaite

So basically what you are doing is misunderstanding what sex is, and claiming it's too difficult to define because of a mistaken belief that everything needs to be in place correctly in a female body for it to count as female in terms of being the sex which produces large gametes.

lol, if I was Judith Butler I’d probably be way more wordy.

Those functions are a female functional essence. It would work for most cases, and you can classify like that if you want, but there would be some people where it would be a struggle and people would come to different conclusions, even using that criteria.

Those functions are a female functional essence. It would work for most cases, and you can classify like that if you want, but there would be some people where it would be a struggle and people would come to different conclusions, even using that criteria.

Lol at the “essence” again.

Humans are bipedal. The fact that some humans are born with one or no legs does not change the fact that humans are bipedal.

Disorders of sex development are disorders. Before you can have a disorder you have an order. The order is the female reproductive system. It's a system because each organ has its own role. If some part of that system is faulty or absent, the body doesn't become not female, and it doesn't become male. Because female is the name of the sex class, not the functionality.

Before Sam Brinton there was Jamie Shupe, who got an article in the Guardian about how he was the USA’s first legally NB person. He has since admitted he has AGP.

How are you classifying people? Is there a people essence? How are you classifying essence? What makes something an essence? Does it have to have an essence of essence to be an essence?

You don't believe "female" is a thing? Do you also think the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese?

I mean, there are two types needed to propagate the species.

One is male and one is female.

With humans, that’s men and women. With bovine, it’s cows and bulls. With sheep, it’s ewes and rams. With poultry, it’s hens and roosters. Mare and stallion, doe and stag, etc, etc.

You get the picture.

It’s pretty simple / straight forward / basic, entry-level biology.

Not every person or animal is fertile, but they’re either male or female, unless they have some sort of disorder. DISorder.

Obfuscate as much as you want.

You can’t change reality with talk of ‘essences’ and other weasel words….