[Serious] Please convince me gender is binary

[LastPoet]

No, not at all.  But to establish norms, you have to look at the numbers.  There are some great dads-- I was one of them, I think, taking care of my daughter starting about 4 months, while my wife worked her teaching job.  Then she'd come home, and I'd go off to my evening job and she'd take over baby duties.  Tough life, tbh, but very rewarding.  But that required a lot of technology-- breast pumps, good refrigeration, formula foods, and so on.  Without those, baby would last about a week with mommy gone so much until it wasted away and ceased to exist.

And diapers, a shitload of them. It is rewarding indeed.

[tackattack]

---

- For Tack  

Individuals don't determine gender constructs.  They are supplied to us from before we can speak or remember that we couldn't speak.  They form a part of who we are and what we implicitly take to be true, and because of this...we find folks like Benny asserting the things in his example..and we find gender dysphoria..and we find non normativism.  They surprise us, for lack of a better word.

Now, this

I don’t think something as personal as self-identity needs a societal judgement or classification

I appreciate that you think that..but since legal protection hinges on these classifications ...and we're talking about a group that finds themselves ostracized, marginalized,  disenfranchised and even brutalized by default of normative convention..until you can convince the nasty normativists to stop being assholes....yes, classifications will be required.  Trans bans and bathroom laws and grab checks neatly lay out why, even if in a perfect world we shouldn't be having this convo..in this imperfect world it needs to be addressed.

---

OK so to regurgitate what I've learned:

1. Sex- is gonadal and binary Male female
2. Gender Identity- Male or Female (might develop later and be different than gonads) is bimodal and highly subjective and personal
3. Gender expression - What you present yourself as -IDC
4. sexual attraction - IDC
5. transgender people- gender identify as male or female typically
6. non-binary gender characteristics- Still haven't got an answer from shell on this but I can only assume it's a combination of gender identity and expression?

7. Gender construct- From what Gae tells me this is how others (society and lawmakers) view your gender identity)

OK so a couple notes on gender constructs. Our gender identity is part of our internal gender construct which can be based on our natural and nurtured world. It is also subject to internal belief constructs and definitions which can change over time.
So going with that I understand where societal and peer pressure to conform to someone else's definition of what "a man/woman" is. I see the need for classifications for laws and protections. My problem still lies in not accepting a non binary definition. You may feel you're less of a guy because of your bows than the jock at the gym. In my eyes you're still both valid guys, with each of you holding different definitions of what it means to be a guy. Both those definitions aren't the same as my definition, but close enough to recognize.
As an example, the three of us look at a patch of grass. I call it green, jock calls it olive and you call it emerald. Now you can whittle me into being the most specific shade of green I could establish and I would probably say fern green reluctantly. My point was that our definitions don't have to match because we all familiarly just use green.

Couldn't society just go with a more clinical definition or are super broad definition for legal status? Something like using phrases like "birth sex", "gonadal gender", "gender expression" or "sexual preference" in their legal jargon to clarify things? Or maybe word it "person accepted is a principal part male/female" or something more jargon-y.

[The Grand Nudger]

We could do anything we want in reference to these constructs..but we won't..because it causes a portion of our populace to get super uncomfortable and religious, lol. Rather than create laws or classifications to protect that demographic from the nastiness it faces, we create laws designed to protect -us- from them, as though they were dangerous...when the only danger they pose is to the comfortability of binary heteronormativity.

It's the very definition of pointless cruelty and derision.

[tackattack]

I guess that depends on the "we" in question. OK I agree with your statements. As to the OP though, I'm still not convinced gender is non-binary. I might start saying gender is bimodal instead though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gender is binary or isn't depending on the construct.  If what you're asking about is some comment beyond the mere existence of construct (and/or details of it;s contents) then you've been presented with everything you would need to understand criticism of gender binarism.  Whether you decide to refine your views or adhere to your previous thoughts on the matter seems more like a negotiation between that position and facts than a failure to establish the grounds by which people make construct contradicting statements.

I find myself in a similar position on a wide range of things.

[Anomalocaris]

I guess that depends on the "we" in question. OK I agree with your statements. As to the OP though, I'm still not convinced gender is non-binary. I might start saying gender is bimodal  instead though.

Gender is compound trait assembled from a number of different underlying characteristics.

Some of the typical underlying characteristics used, such as genitalia, do have a continuous but heavily bimodal distribution. Others characteristics that may be used have a shape that has not been so well and uncontestedly defined. The selection of characteristics that goes into construction of compound trait is by no means universally agreed, not their relative weights uncontested.

“Conservatives” like to conserve what they conceive to be the correct final shape of the final trait, and would then cherry pick the characteristics and their weights so as to claim the a priori determined correct shape is not without basis.

[bennyboy]

I guess that depends on the "we" in question. OK I agree with your statements. As to the OP though, I'm still not convinced gender is non-binary. I might start saying gender is bimodal  instead though.

Gender is compound trait assembled from a number of different underlying characteristics.

Some of the typical underlying characteristics used, such as genitalia, do have a continuous but heavily bimodal distribution.  Others characteristics that may be used have a shape that has not been so well and uncontestedly defined.    The selection of characteristics that goes into construction of compound trait is by no means universally agreed, not their relative weights uncontested.

“Conservatives” like to conserve what they conceive to be the correct final shape of the final trait, and would then cherry pick the characteristics and their weights so as to claim the a priori determined correct shape is not without basis.

1)  redefine gender using multiple axes which when evaluated collectively will not be bimodal
2)  subsequently claim that gender is non-binary

That's fine, but the fact is that the human species consists of people who are almost exclusively identifiable as male or female, both in physical phenotype and in their behaviors, both instinctive and learned-- and then there are those other people who either physically or psychologically have found themselves in a different place.

I don't think we need to take those 0.1% and make our entire cultural semantic revolve around accommodating demands.  There's too little payoff for the tremendous amount of energy that requires. So long as all individuals are protected legally from violence, from discrimination in the workplace, and so on, okay.

But I'm sick of hearing stuff on talking-head shows like, "If you don't use my pronoun of choice, that's an act of VIOLENCE. You are verbally assaulting me by calling me 'he' just because I have a penis, have XY chromosomes, and my parents named me Jonathan!"

[The Grand Nudger]

Our cultural semantic already revolves around those demands...is already a construct that differs from other constructs, and explains why you see others as "identifiably x" and "inauthentically x" even if they, in the gender construct of their own culture...would think that you had lost your mind for saying so.

What you and many others are sick of is the specter of some attack or offensive that simply isn't happening. You have been made to feel uncomfortable in your binary normativity only because you've been forced to confront what shittiness it produces...and up to this point it seemed to you like an uncontested biological truth.

If you call someone he, and they correct you..you are..in plain point of fact...being an asshole by perpetually insisting otherwise and continuing to employ the innacurate term. It is very, very easy to call a girl "she". We do it all the time.

I assume that you've had a trans friend or knew a trans person at some point in your life? Someone that might even have had to indicate to you that they preferred to be referred to as a she, that they like you held to some binary norm but for whatvr reason identified with the opposite gender of their biological sex. I assume that you found it easy to refer to that person as a she. That you could understand why being called he might grate on a person, in the same way that my constantly referring to you as "she", or arguing away (or flat out rejecting) your masculinity, might?

Insomuch as the insistence of some of the things said in this thread contribute to, support, or advocate for that shittiness we are now forced to confront..yes, that mindset and that habit is an act of violence, and yes, blurting out those things you know to be broadly aligned with an ideology that does violence to those people creates a rational and palpable fear in those people..and is the definition of verbal assault. Perhaps, if simply correcting people carried with it a societal expectation of assent - then those people would not have to dive down the rabbit hole to describe in needling detail exactly what you're doing and contributing to by denying the validity of their very existence and asserting that they are an inconvenience to your cultural semantics. Semantics which are nothing more or less than expressions of the status quo of a historically and presently abusive construct.

You're allowed to look at a person and get it wrong, Benny. It happens all the time. It happens to cis and binary as well. That, getting it wrong, is not what anyone is being taken to task for. This is a wonderful state of affairs, because it offers the mulligan many people seek in other similar contexts, but which doesn't exist in them.

[bennyboy]

Are you saying that if someone asks to be referred to in a certain way, or not in a certain way, then we should respect that wish? What if we just don't happen to believe that demographic, or that individual, is deserving of that kind of compliance? What if, rather than calling a particular trans individual "she," I want to call that person a "crazy piece of shit, who I suspect is gaming a new female identity role just to get extra attention?" What if rather than referring to someone by their individual identity, I insist on reminding them of say their racial demographic and insist on defining them by it despite requests not to? Am I out of line?

I'm from Vancouver. When I was younger and on the street, I went to a lot of raves, I wore fingernail polish, had long flowing locks, was super thin and slightly too stylish. I was on LSD as much as not for pretty good stretches. People had special snowflake identities-- one guy was always talking about how he was an Egyptian god, another guy insisted he was balancing Vancouver's four psychic winds. And I'd say there were many of these non-binary gender expressions before people even started verbalizing that stuff-- Vancouver must surely be right up there with San Francisco.

The shit I saw, and the shit my friends on the streets would get into for a little extra cash, and some of the things that people tried through various means to draw me into, probably covered all the bases. I was a bit of a toy myself, mostly for older women, and especially for dancers or sex workers-- it was a power thing, I think. And yet, I heard the words "fucking faggot" not infrequently because of my appearance. I also knew some VERY jock-type kids on the street who were dressing as trans in order to get tricks from rich businessmen. Shit was wild back then, in much more interesting ways than the special snowflakes with their Twitter and their manufactured rage are today.

But I gotta tell you-- I've known enough gay men and male-to-female trans queens to say (and obviously I'm generalizing greatly here, but this was my experience): (1) they are exotic, dynamic, cultured, interesting people; (2) they are very often SO FUCKING ANNOYING because they will stop the world in its tracks in order to make it revolve around them. And did I mention-- those bitches were CRAZY.

Here's what I think. I think people have too much fucking free time. The world is full of special snowflakes squawking to get attention, and of haters who consistently give it to them. I think they have a symbiotic relationship-- they NEED each other there, so they can squawk, and shout, and generally waste time. What we need is a nuclear apocalypse, so people can shut the fuck up about all this useless noise, and get down to the proper state of any animal species-- struggling to survive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you saying that if someone asks to be referred to in a certain way, or not in a certain way, then we should respect that wish?  

People do so for you, Mr. Benny.

What if we just don't happen to believe that demographic, or that individual, is deserving of that kind of compliance?

What if I just so happen to believe that you don't deserve such accomodation?

What if, rather than calling a particular trans individual "she," I want to call that person a "crazy piece of shit, who's gaming a new female identity role just to get extra attention?"

You're asking me "what if" people were pointless and blatant assholes.

 What if rather than referring to someone by their individual identity, I insist on reminding them of say their racial demographic and insist on defining them by it despite requests not to?  Am I out of line?

See above.

What if a person was unwilling to extend the basic considerations that society affords them to others, and replaced that consideration with intentional insulting, offensive and derogatory comments instead? Well, then they would be engaging in an act of social violence and verbal assault.