[Serious] Please convince me gender is binary

[The Grand Nudger]

I said sex was genetic and gender either conformed with sex or didn't.  I don't mind exploring the topic with you and I love your questions, because they usually make me think.
"If you're unwilling or hesitent to kill...does that make you less of a type of man?" If I defined a man as a killer then yes. I'm passive so in my eyes it doesn't make me less of a man, but in your eyes it might.
"If a female were more willing to kill..does that make her more of a type of man than you?" same answer. It still doesn't make either of them less of a man or woman in legal terms, or in societal terms.

Well, that's just the thing....it doesn't matter what you call yourself..I'm going to call you a girl from now on.  Tell me how that's different from you insisting on your own definitions of heteronormativity in the case of some non binary person?  Imagine what it would be like if I managed to get everyone else in our society to treat you like a girl, regardless of what you say or how you make your case that you are..indeed..a guy.

These things -are- considered in societal terms..and because of that, peoples societal beliefs do find their way into our laws. These things don't exist in a vacuum, they are not consequence-free.

Using Gae's words "one heteronormative gender binary here may belong to the other heteronormative gender binary" That's 2. Shell did the same thing "spectrum between femininity and masculinity" There is still no evidence I should change my definition of Gender to something other than male and female, guy/girl, he/she, woman/man.

|_____________Some type of MAN______________|_____________Some type of WOMAN__________|

You may be anywhere on your sliding scale with what EACH INDIVIDUAL identifies as what a man/woman is, but that's because you're not setting the goalposts in a definition (because it makes you feel less like what you want yourself to be like based on what your belief of it is supposed to be).  Societies don't function like that, they work with laws, infrastructure and policies to better that society.

Sure, you could stick to your guns by creating a semantic rule while failing to deny the contents of others comments that argue to the contrary, but that's all you'd be doing..and it's not actually true that you haven't seen any evidence to cause you to refine your definitions, you've simply decided not to in the face of it.   Meanwhile, that act has caused people considerable harm...so it's not as if it's an innocent act that effects no one else.  

Maybe try "some type of man/some type of woman" with male and female as two sets beneath encompassing the entirety of the gender construct spectrum? Both a male and a female can be "some type of" guy or girl as we describe either of those things. My brother is a Heather. My sister is a Frank. Obviously I;m not commenting on the presence of a penis when I say either of those things, even though I am certainly commenting on types of girls and guys in our society.

I don't feel tough today so today I feel like a sissy man. That works abslutely fine when you're just you being you. But going out into society and interacting like people are supposed to call you they/them/fi/ze/hir/hirs/zirs instictively is a little ridiculous, IMO. I feel like I'm being asked to identify people differently based on how they feel about themselves, or their internal biochemical systems work. It seems eerily familiar to my wife expecting me to read her mind to make her happy. I'd just prefer to ask you your name and call you steve.
I mean personally I don't care who you(the royal you) want to diddle, what you feel like on the inside, or what you're packing down below, as long as you can get the job done.

Or they could just call you Tack (or whatever your name is).  Speaking of, I honestly don't understand the problem..it's not as if we have trouble calling people what they want to be called in any other circumstance.   How often has a person introduced themselves to you as Joe..and then you've gone on to insist on calling them Nancy, because you have some semantic rule that states that every Joe is actually a Nancy?  

Not often, I'm guessing. Probably never.....and yet.....

So basically where I'm at is
1. sex is genetic. Yes there are the less than .08% that have neither or both or some weird XXY, but we teach people that humans have 20 digits and 2 eyes, etc. We don't say everyone has to have 20 digits, but it's the well established norm.
2. Gender conformity mirrors the genetic binary norm and is the most prevalent perspective.

I still haven't seen any reasons to call someone a zir or hir or non-binary or a unicorn or a helicopter as the meme goes. I would like to accept that gender is non-binary, I've yet to see a convincing layout of ideas though.

I still see no reason to call you Joe, Nancy. 

Actually I just had a thought. What if people being all judgey and like little classifying machines utilizing normative society, have made people who once felt normative, less like the norm they define as manly or womanly; precipitating them to question their gender identity and subsequently  addd to the societal confusion of gender identity? IS that thought just like totally off base?

Not at all.  It's the perpetual crisis of gender identity as an ever changing social construct. Recall, people who accept the origin and nuance of gender constructs aren't even the ones making people feel like shit this way (and worse). It's heteronormatives that do that to themselves and other heteronormatives..while also just generally being assholes to non normatives in puerile and senseless ways. Like insisting on calling Joe Nancy.... no matter how many times he tells you he's Joe.

You hit this earlier in your response, when you decided that you were a sissy today. We all know what happens to sissies, right, especially sissy kids? Asses get beat. Either those beatings produce heteronormativity or they produce a damage non normative person. This may be why we go to great lengths to hide those "sissyfing" things about ourselves as we develop..bu it also goes a long way to explaining why people assert the heteronormative things...not because they're true or even because we actually think they are as a genuine belief....but because there are consequences for divergence.

For a very long time, non normativity could get you killed...and it still happens. That;s one hell of an incentive to keep your trap shut and let the heteronormative train roll right on past you. Meanwhile, there have been cultures in past where non binarism and non normativity were considered sacred, even, and those societies seemed to be free of this social dynamic so common to heteronormativity. All of this is to say that we don't have to do this to ourselves or to each other, and it's not actually informed by any specific fact of one sex or another..... we just decide that we're going to, and rationalize that after the fact as though it were..apparently.

[Acrobat]

Actually I just had a thought. What if people being all judgey and like little classifying machines utilizing normative society, have made people who once felt normative, less like the norm they define as manly or womanly; precipitating them to question their gender identity and subsequently addd to the societal confusion of gender identity? IS that thought just like totally off base?

I think that is what’s happening. I never had to think of whether I’m cisgender or non-binary before, but now that these concepts exist, it got me to wonder where I fit in that distinction, and I think I fall on the non-binary scale, verified by several none scientific test on the internet.

I haven’t figured out what pronoun I like, all the new ones sound silly. I’m leaning on “your lordship”, and you need to respect this, and refer to me as “your lordship”.

I think all of this just comes with existing in a post-truth world.

[polymath257]

@polymath257 , I don't think there is more than a simple binary division when it comes to sex and gender.

OK, how do you deal with the content of my post then? It looks to me that you simply ignore the complications.

[arewethereyet]

I think where people get confused is with others who are clearly working toward presenting themselves as being other than fitting with the genitals they were born with. Since many of us don't have feelings of being the 'wrong' sex it a difficult concept to understand. That doesn't mean it can't be accepted or that it shouldn't be accepted.

Maleness and femaleness, for lack of better terms, are fluid in pretty much everyone. The extreme of either is the popular conception of what is a man/what is a woman/what is a boy/what is a girl. It's societal in nature. We all know guys we went to school with who seemed to display more feminine traits than the other boys...the reverse being true for the girls- girl jocks being prime examples. As a society we tend to see the male as being better at math and mechanics while the female is seen as more of the caregiver type. The range is so vast and it can change as a person ages and matures.

There's a range of the male and the female stereotype in everyone.


That said, there is a person on my new assignment that I cannot figure out. I haven't gone so far as even designating that person in my mind as he or she. I simply don't know. This person is the most androgynous person in my world right now. But, MEH, I really don't care. This person in friendly, always smiling, and isn't looking to me for anything other than my throwing out a pleasant good morning or how are you today.


Why is it that rock bands from way back were able to go androgynous and no one gave a damn? When the lead singers of bands started showing up in fringe and sparkly clothes and guyliner...no one said a thing. I have to assume that appearing onstage with an obvious package and sporting makeup and glitter wasn't as important as the music. Well, if someone wants to 'bend the rules' who isn't on stage...why the hell do we care?


I am older than a lot of the people here...I simply don't dwell on who is what when it comes to male/female/a blend/homosexual/heterosexual and all other labels and flavors of being any more than the color of a person's skin matters to me, and it never did. Even growing up in the middle of a cornfield surrounded by Catholics didn't cause me to give a damn about a person's individuality.

The only person whose sexual/gender nature that has ever mattered to me is the person I am in an intimate relationship with.

[Tiberius]

@tackattack I changed your thread to the proper Serious tag. In future you can select the tag from the drop down box to the left of the subject input when creating a thread.

[Anomalocaris]

There has been a lot of discussion on it lately, and there's a lot of informed and actual people that struggle with gender. Perhaps I need an education in gender identity, But I only see gender as binary. I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Let me start with a statement, which I'm sure people will jump all over.

I define gender normalcy as that which functions according to its design. Our design is in our DNA as male or female.  Gender identity uses the same words and is thus binary. Is this a true statement? Elucidate me.

PS- I don't think I did the serious tag right, I need an education on that too please

Repeat after me

There is no design. There is no design


It functions however it functions. The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

[Brian37]

There has been a lot of discussion on it lately, and there's a lot of informed and actual people that struggle with gender. Perhaps I need an education in gender identity, But I only see gender as binary. I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Let me start with a statement, which I'm sure people will jump all over.

I define gender normalcy as that which functions according to its design. Our design is in our DNA as male or female.  Gender identity uses the same words and is thus binary. Is this a true statement? Elucidate me.

PS- I don't think I did the serious tag right, I need an education on that too please

Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

Snowflakes as individual snowflakes follow a pattern yes, but each individual snowflake is unique like a fingerprint, but yet I am sure our theist friend here doesn't chalk snowflakes up to Frosty The Snowman. And not only that snowflakes are still related to other weather like sleet and rain because all are made of water. 

I agree, there is no "design" in either life or natural objects that are not life.

Humans merely project intent, when science isn't claiming intent, but is merely a language that describes our observations.

---

The problem with the argument from "design" are things like deadly bacteria, cockroaches,  cancer, Hitler, volcanos, the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs.

The theist simply gets suck on the pretty and ignores all the nasty shit that while undesirable, are just as natural as the things we find pretty.

[Nay_Sayer]

Repeat after me

There is no design.    There is no design


It functions however it functions.   The complete consequences of how it functions is hard to predict by even thoughtful intelligent people, much less with their heads still up the their own asses with Jesus.

Snowflakes as individual snowflakes follow a pattern yes, but each individual snowflake is unique like a fingerprint, but yet I am sure our theist friend here doesn't chalk snowflakes up to Frosty The Snowman. And not only that snowflakes are still related to other weather like sleet and rain because all are made of water. 

I agree, there is no "design" in either life or natural objects that are not life.

Humans merely project intent, when science isn't claiming intent, but is merely a language that describes our observations.

---

The problem with the argument from "design" are things like deadly bacteria, cockroaches,  cancer, Hitler, volcanos, the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs.

The theist simply gets suck on the pretty and ignores all the nasty shit that while undesirable, are just as natural as the things we find pretty.

Personally, I go with the manchineel tree.

[Abaddon_ire]

Gender, like many other things, is a spectrum. For example, gender is often claimed to be determined by genitalia, however hermaphrodites can have both male and female genitalia to varying extents. So even when it gets to basic physical characteristics, it obviously is not binary.

---

Snowflakes as individual snowflakes follow a pattern yes, but each individual snowflake is unique like a fingerprint

That's technically not quite accurate.

[Brian37]

Gender, like many other things, is a spectrum. For example, gender is often claimed to be determined by genitalia, however hermaphrodites can have both male and female genitalia to varying extents. So even when it gets to basic physical characteristics, it obviously is not binary.

---

Snowflakes as individual snowflakes follow a pattern yes, but each individual snowflake is unique like a fingerprint

That's technically not quite accurate.

Not in the fingerprint concept no. But just like hurricanes we cant predict how many per year, or even the size from start to finish of each hurricane, but only from a cone, day to day basis, but we can predict the conditions that lead to hurricanes. Snowflakes are predictable not on an individual pattern scale, but on conditions that lead to average patterns. Just like we know hurricanes are always unique but range from category 1 to category 5.

Snowflakes are predictable, because of conditions, not because each snowflake has the same finger print. Humans are predictable too, because of conditions, not in that every human ends up with the same DNA sequence.