[Serious] Non-binary

[Belacqua]

To mistake the forest for the trees is an apt idiom for those blindly providing support to a nonsensical nonbinary movement.

You haven't yet demonstrated that it's nonsensical.

I understand you believe it's nonsensical. But thinking people are able to provide reasons for what they believe. You haven't done so.

[Foxaèr]

Considering that there is zero evidence outside of personal experience to support the validity of the nonbinary concept, actual cognitive studies would need to be undertaken, wouldn't you agree? After all, it is the logical course.

[Belacqua]

Considering that there is zero evidence outside of personal experience to support the validity of the nonbinary concept, actual cognitive studies would need to be undertaken, wouldn't you agree? After all, it is the logical course.

If you're moving from "they're delusional" to "more study is needed before we declare they're delusional," that is progress.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can there be anything other than zero evidence outside of personal experience to suggest that the binary concept is valid?

---

I'm sure it's easy to find any number of people, psychologists included [emphasis added]...

You understand that clinical psychologist = therapist, right? They're who we've been talking about.

What I understand is that you can't find one willing to do the thing that you've suggested despite your concern trolling arguments. Kind of surprising, really, when we think about it. There's always at least one nut willing to pray the gay away. Ethical therapies with better than a snowballs chance in hell of working being the prevailing narrative, though, I suppose you already knew you'd find such providers thin on the ground before you insisted?

[brewer]

Can there be anything other than zero evidence outside of personal experience to suggest that the binary concept is valid?

Outside? The bible tells us so. Oh, wait, that was only metaphorical.

Lets all hold hands and sing Yes Jesus Loves Me.

[Belacqua]

Gender has been one of the most contentious topics of the past decade, and you think its hard to find psychologists that disagree with the prescribed narrative lol? Insofar as there is any controversy with what I have said, the issue is likely to be political not scientific.

Isn't Grandizer a clinical psychologist? Bring him on and lets have the discussion.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any post on this thread in which you suggest that it's bad to be non-binary, or that it's impossible for non-binary people to be happy. 

Only Foxaire says they're "deluded," etc. Everyone else is non-bigoted about non-binary people.

Some people seem to be jumping to the conclusion that therapy for non-binary people would always involve changing them into something else. I see no reason to believe this. 

If they have some kind of dysmorphia or other troubled feelings associated with being non-binary, there are a number of outcomes I could foresee. It's true that in some cases they might decide they're not really non-binary, that they are better identifying as their assigned-at-birth designation or becoming trans. On the other hand they might well become more comfortable with being non-binary. It must be very difficult for some people to recognize this about themselves and accept themselves, considering how many people in the world still consider them to be "deluded."

A good outcome of therapy would be to give them the strength to be happily non-binary, and give the middle finger to people like Foxaire.

[Foxaèr]

Yes, give me the finger.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, and giving a person the strength to be non binary is in no sense way shape or form what has been suggested with the notion of non binary gender conversion therapy. That may be why we can find no examples of professionals suggesting as much, why we find ourselves concerned with the stigmatization of such proposed "therapies", and why we are not in any serious conversation whatsoever.

This thread is or has been reduced to an attempt to game the forum rules and create a safe space for open trolling. If we want to create a thread to spout out that some specific gender concept or identity or expression is sick and unwell and deluded and it;s a science fact, or to flog some absurd notion that opponents of "treating" a person by "fixing" their gender to conform to societies expectations is, thus, an enemy of either compassion or suffering people, then we could do that. No part of that, however, is any part of openly discussing and understanding gender, binary or otherwise.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any post on this thread in which you suggest that it's bad to be non-binary, or that it's impossible for non-binary people to be happy. 

Right; transgender and non-binary identities are by all accounts healthy individuals. Meaning they can live a successful and fulfilling life, and pursuit happiness like anyone else. Secondly, the incongruence between their sex and gender identity isn't one that by itself interferes with normal functioning. There is no psychological impairment, no impairment of work or normal life activities, and no necessary distress. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to classify it as a dysfunction or disorder.

Insofar as an individual does experience any functional impairments, the issue can be addressed in multiple ways. It's a problem-solving question, and any number of variables can be manipulate to produce the desired outcome. If there is any kind of prejudice or discrimination, you can solve the problem by addressing the social variable. If there is any experienced distress it can be addressed psychologically or (more controversially) biologically.

As far as the term delusion is concerned I think it's likewise important not to use it in a stigmatizing way. Primarily because if we treat it as an insult, it simultaneously throws everyone who does experience delusions under the bus. And they are entitled to the same respect as non-binary individuals. (Note that this has partly been my disagreement with Nudger—he stigmatizes words like illness and therapy and drugs and uses them as sarcastic insults.)

My understanding is that transgenderism fails to meet the clinical criteria for delusion because of the absence of dysfunction. It doesn't interrupt social or psychological functioning the way believing your spouse is an imposter or that your boss is a spy does. As an example, consider that delusions of grandeur will cause you to divorce your spouse, book a flight to Africa, and spend your life savings trying to end world hunger over the weekend.

The appropriate word to use, which you'll find throughout the literature, is incongruence not delusion. They have an incongruence between their sex and their gender.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an interesting concern. Why would the use of therapy or drugs as treatment for an illness to effect non binary gender conversion be stigmatized, in your estimation? If this is a compassionate and effective therapy which should be available to people, where are the clinics, where are the therapists cosigning the plan, what does the roadmap to wellness look like?

Now, I understand that you feel compelled to respond with some boilerplate comments about the nature of treatment or therapy in general, that they're already doing it..and ofc anyone would be a monster for even asking further questions......, but I don't think that we can maintain that fiction when we've already conceded that there's a prevailing narrative, and the thing we're discussing is outside of it. So, I'd really love to see what it looks like.