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 people are being imposed on, with the threat of prison for non compliance, just for noticing someone's sex.

What a wonderful utopian state Canada is.

I think, therefore I am?

it’s a basic philosophical law that being requires thinking.

Yes. Canada is not a role model. Don’t go there if you think you are being imposed on in the U.K.

What are you talking about?!

You said misgendering is rude. To “misgender” someone is more accurately described as correctly sexing someone. So why is correctly sexing someone rude and could lead to escalation? Why is it not imposing on me if I am forced to mis-sex someone or risk escalation?

Why is it not considered rude to force me to gender someone against my own observation of their sex?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I wasn’t accusing you of being rude to me, or saying that you told me that. I was referring to the ridiculous concept of ‘misgendering’, a new idea that has been rather successfully imposed on those of us old enough to have decades of experience of third person pronouns always being sex-based.

Is that a yes?

Rational female people know they are female.

Exactly, you can’t be a self-conscious being without thought

old enough to have decades of experience of third person pronouns always being sex-based.

It’s not even decades of experience. It’s the entire history of the English language. Occasionally people pretended it wasn’t, often for silly reasons, like pantomime. Now we are being told, only very recently in the history of the existence of the English language, that we have to pretend out of all seriousness. It’s a very recent imposition.

😂

'Being requires thinking' does not imply that you are your thoughts

Not all thought is or has to be rational. Rational thought is just a name for orthodox thought that obeys Western rules of logic that dictate how we think we should think.

I highly again recommend checking out model Rain Dove for info on people who don't feel they fit in as either male or female.

They share a lot of info and even how they communicate with people who disagree.

They can pass for either sex and are generally called he or she by the public.

I think they do a great job or explaining what it means to them.

Then who are you without thought?
We are not talking the physicality of being, we are talking of inner being, one’s identity.

We don’t “sex” people like we do animals. It’s dehumanising.

We use gender pronouns to address them by their gender.

There is no 'female inner being'
Being female is a material reality, same as being human

We don’t “sex” people like we do animals. It’s dehumanising.

We use gender pronouns to address them by their gender.

No we don't. If you don't believe in "gender" as distinct from sex, pronouns are sex based. Like women's oppression.

We sex people from infancy. Babies and toddlers know which sex is which. I could stand on the busiest street in London and correctly sex everyone that walked past me with 99+% accuracy.

It has been demanded that we use “gender pronouns” to address them by their “gender” but I don’t want to, because I don’t believe in gender. Why is it not considered rude to make me use “gender pronouns”?

Pretty sure that Simone de Beauvoir was also just arguing that gender is a harmful construct (like GC feminists are). But maybe I misread her.

I didn’t say there was a “female inner being” (there isn’t btw), I was saying you keep talking about physicality of being when we are talking about gender identity which is independent of physicality.

Female is sex, it is a label applied to unthinking beings with no self consciousness as well as thinking beings with self consciousness.

Woman and the identity of woman only applies to one thinking self conscious being, a human, and it requires thought to have an identity. Identity is who you think you are (quite literally).

A pronoun:

• makes it easy to refer to someone when you don't know their name
• replaces someone's name with more universal language to make it less cognitively demanding on the speaker

So the linguistic purpose of a pronoun is a) to refer accurately to a stranger and b) to make it easier to talk about someone you do know.

If we address a stranger by invisible gender rather than observable sex, we cannot be sure we are referring to them accurately. We cannot point out a person in a crowd to someone else, because we have no way to know what's going on in their head. We cannot say "he" or even "that man", because that would be sexing them.

Therefore a gender-based pronoun fails on count a) because humans are not mind readers.

If we are using shorthand to make things easier, and our eye-to-brain feedback tells us there's a woman in front of us, and then we have to correct our instinct to say "she" and use "he" or "they" instead, then it's not making things easier.

Therefore a gender-based pronoun also fails on count b) because we are not using the easiest way to refer to someone.

If it were true that our pronouns were based on gender identity rather than sex, they would soon evolve into either describing simple observable reality, or turn completely neutral and make no distinction between male and female.

Because you don’t get to dictate society or social rules.
Society is the sum of what the powerful and influential want.
If they say it is rude, it is rude.
There is no use complaining to those of us who agree, it’s not like we could change it to suit you anyway.

Nah. I do not agree
Being a woman is not an identity (and does not require thoughts either)

Because you don’t get to dictate society or social rules.
Society is the sum of what the powerful and influential want.
If they say it is rude, it is rude.
There is no use complaining to those of us who agree, it’s not like we could change it to suit you anyway.

Why are you speaking like a TRA when you don't agree with it then? Bizarre.

I’ve never really understood all the ghost in the machine stuff. All sorts of things ‘are’ that don’t think. Like trees and jellyfish.

You’re not making sense. The gendered pronouns are third person, you would never use them in front of who you are referring to. You would use second person “you” on everyone in front of you because it is gender neutral if you don’t know their name. 😐

You can point out a person in a crowd by using what colour clothing they are wearing. “Do you know who that is in the black jumper?” Or a hat, or bag, or something. Whatever it is you’d have to refer to it anyway because “Do you know who he is?” Usually requires a follow-up of “The one with the baseball cap” anyway. Just skip the first useless question that doesn’t pinpoint a person in a crowd because it will refer to at least half the people, and go straight to a question that will pinpoint exactly who you are asking about.