[Serious] Please convince me gender is binary

[tackattack]

---

OK I'm not arguing I don't have preconceptions and bias, I'm aware I do and am seeking to overcome them. You defeated any idea of non-binary when you said "girly guys" or "manish women" . 

It may be a subset, or type of guy or girl, but it's still a guy or girl. Perhaps rather than making declarations about personal pronouns and safe spaces, we could just accept that being a man is about more than just being a jerky jock and being a woman is about more than a maidservant? Wouldn't it just be a shit ton easier if we just accepted that our ideas of what a man and woman are vary based on culture and person proclivity, then what's going on out there now?

 Yes, but, also included in my comments was that the very phrase "type of guy" differs from culture to culture, and things that we place in one heteronormative gender binary here may belong to the other heteronormative gender binary there or even be a common trait of males here regardless of what we tell ourselves about heteronormativity and gender binarism.

People who reject heteronormativity and gender binarism -are- accepting that our ideas of what a man or a woman are, gender...have a basis in culture and personal proclivity, you..if you'll recall, based your ideas on some idea of a natural function, instead.

We could explore that, btw, and by reference to my final comment of heteronormativity from the last post. Would you kill a motherfucker if I asked you real nice? Some of our structural differences with females, as males, are thought to be adaptations to violence...positively lethal violence. That would mean that lethal violence is at least one of your male natural functions. If you're unwilling or hesitent to kill...does that make you less of a type of man?

If a female were more willing to kill..does that make her more of a type of man than you?

---

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.

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

@AFTT47 and @Brian37 - I hope you don't think I'm trying to persecute anyone non-normative, I'm simply trying to understand it better.

---

Honestly, I don't really experience gender identity problems myself. Therefore, I am inclined to look at it as binary too, but that's the point. That's only my experience. Lots of people are saying they fall on a spectrum between femininity and masculinity. They sure behave like they do, so I'll take their word for it. There's nothing in my life experience that I could turn to for evidence, so I have to trust that people know how they feel about themselves.

---

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.

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.


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.

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?