Non-binary genders

[Luveria]

Hermaphrodite is a biological term.

No one has been saying it isn't.

[Susurruses]

Indeed it is. You are not the ultimate arbitrator of "What Is Offensive".
The correct biological/medical/scientific term for humans is "intersex" or "intersexed".

I fucking aware of that, have you been reading the thread, I've been bombarded with it despite me never saying otherwise. Hermaphrodite is a biological term. Snails are examples of hermaphrodites

And your excuse for aggressive language towards me is..?
You have previously questioned whether/why "hermaphrodite" is an offensive term and (falsely) claimed it was correct medical terminology.
Your bringing up snails is completely irrelevant. Humans are not snails.
(One might suspect you were just deliberately seeking to offend & have no interest in actual discussion, with the implication being that your presence in this thread is purely to stir trouble rather than debate in any rational manner.)

[Luveria]

I fucking aware of that, have you been reading the thread, I've been bombarded with it despite me never saying otherwise. Hermaphrodite is a biological term. Snails are examples of hermaphrodites

And your excuse for aggressive language towards me is..?
You have previously questioned whether/why "hermaphrodite" is an offensive term and (falsely) claimed it was correct medical terminology.
Your bringing up snails is completely irrelevant. Humans are not snails.
(One might suspect you were just deliberately seeking to offend & have no interest in actual discussion, with the implication being that your presence in this thread is purely to stir trouble rather than debate in any rational manner.)

Perhaps they are are trying to trick you into breaking the forum rules.

I know you are trying to trick me into breaking the forum rules so back off.

[Chinese Regions]

I fucking aware of that, have you been reading the thread, I've been bombarded with it despite me never saying otherwise. Hermaphrodite is a biological term. Snails are examples of hermaphrodites

And your excuse for aggressive language towards me is..?
You have previously questioned whether/why "hermaphrodite" is an offensive term and (falsely) claimed it was correct medical terminology.
Your bringing up snails is completely irrelevant. Humans are not snails.
(One might suspect you were just deliberately seeking to offend & have no interest in actual discussion, with the implication being that your presence in this thread is purely to stir trouble rather than debate in any rational manner.)

Link to where I've said it was a medical term. It is a biological term, if it were misused it might be offensive but it in it self is not. I take offence to being called Japanese, does that mean Japanese is inherently derogatory? No, its misuse was.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And your excuse for aggressive language towards me is..?
You have previously questioned whether/why "hermaphrodite" is an offensive term and (falsely) claimed it was correct medical terminology.
Your bringing up snails is completely irrelevant. Humans are not snails.
(One might suspect you were just deliberately seeking to offend & have no interest in actual discussion, with the implication being that your presence in this thread is purely to stir trouble rather than debate in any rational manner.)

Link to where I've said it was a medical term. It is a biological term, if it were misused it might be offensive but it in it self is not. I take offence to being called Japanese, does that mean Japanese is inherently derogatory? No, its misuse was.

Except there is functionally no situation, when hermaphrodite is applied to groups of people in any broad sense, when it's not offensive.

It's like 'tranny'. Yeah, some people reclaim it but if you try and claim it's not offensive then you're just a transphobic shithead.

It's the exact same thing here, so tell me, Chinese Regions, what is it? Is it still not offensive?

[Munrova]

To everyone who is saying that the only two genders are male and female, you're operating under a misunderstanding. Male and female, those are sexes, not genders. You are mostly right that, besides intersex people, the only two sexes are male and female. However, sex is only physical. Gender is which one (male, female, neither, both, etc.) you mentally identify with. You - and I used to, too - probably mix up gender and sex because our parents and teachers used gender as a substitute for sex (for obvious reasons).

As you can probably tell, I acknowledge that non-binary genders exist, though I am a male who identifies as such. I'm not so sure what trigender is, though, but obviously there are people who do.

As for the hermaphrodite question, it isn't used anymore to describe humans. The proper term in the case is intersex.

[United Meritocratic Athiest Democracy]

To everyone who is saying that the only two genders are male and female, you're operating under a misunderstanding. Male and female, those are sexes, not genders. You are mostly right that, besides intersex people, the only two sexes are male and female. However, sex is only physical. Gender is which one (male, female, neither, both, etc.) you mentally identify with. You - and I used to, too - probably mix up gender and sex because our parents and teachers used gender as a substitute for sex (for obvious reasons).

As you can probably tell, I acknowledge that non-binary genders exist, though I am a male who identifies as such. I'm not so sure what trigender is, though, but obviously there are people who do.

As for the hermaphrodite question, it isn't used anymore to describe humans. The proper term in the case is intersex.

Trigender is an anime series, isn't it?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Might I strongly suggest that people KEEP ON TOPIC and NOT engage in baiting or otherwise intentionally trying to infuriate their fellow posters? Thanks.

[Luveria]

To everyone who is saying that the only two genders are male and female, you're operating under a misunderstanding. Male and female, those are sexes, not genders. You are mostly right that, besides intersex people, the only two sexes are male and female. However, sex is only physical. Gender is which one (male, female, neither, both, etc.) you mentally identify with. You - and I used to, too - probably mix up gender and sex because our parents and teachers used gender as a substitute for sex (for obvious reasons).

The majority of people insisting only two genders exist are those who refuse to learn sex and gender are two different things, and their argument is gender is determined by genitalia. There are of course people who genuinely don't understand the difference but those ones easily realize that once they are told about the difference.

As you can probably tell, I acknowledge that non-binary genders exist, though I am a male who identifies as such. I'm not so sure what trigender is, though, but obviously there are people who do.

Having three genders.

[Arcturus IV]

Yes, it's me again. I don't approve of your telling me I can't be what I say I am, because that's exactly what you're doing. Stop it. You're doing the same thing that people do when they say "you can't be trans* because it's a load of bullshit". And it isn't nice.

The thing is that your whole "I'm not human" thing is an abstract philosophical point whereas gender is a lived reality with serious sociopolitical ramifications. Hence, to equate the two is to trivialize the trans experience.

No, my assertion is a valid opinion and one that I hold as very important to myself. What makes it trivial? Who decides what I get to believe and don't get to believe? Why is it not okay (and rightfully so) to shoot down the trans* mindset as bullshit, but it's perfectly acceptable to tell me that my belief is bullshit and I "don't get to identify as a different species" (when in fact I am not, but that's beside the point - it's someone telling me how to live my life and attempting to force preconceived notions onto me against my will)?

This is infuriating.

TSM just got through ripping someone for doing exactly the same thing she has been doing to me. I'm not saying it's comparable. I'm saying it's related, because if you negate my reasoning for not considering myself a person, you negate my reasoning for not considering myself gendered. And both are bad. That's the plural form of "you", by the way, not singular. I'm not accusing you (singular) of anything.

I don't identify as being a person.

Too fucking bad.

No, not "too fucking bad".

I don't identify as having a gender.

That's fine.

WHAT. Do you not see the discrepancy here?? Jesus christ, I honestly don't know what to think at this point.

If you say

You can't not be a person / you have to be human

you might as well say

You can't not have any connection with gender / you have to have a gender, even if it's agender.

Either way, it's shoving me in that damned box against my will.

No I don't. They're completely unrelated concepts. This isn't terribly difficult. Whatever you are, it's not anything transgender.

You can be agender, that falls under the trans* umbrella. But "Oh I'm not a person I'm not a human being" bullshit is appropriating crap that serves to do nothing more than troll and undermine the transgender community and transgender people as a whole, so forgive me if I'm not terribly accepting.

I am finding it extremely taxing and difficult to forgive someone who preaches acceptance yet fails to practise it when it doesn't fit their own beliefs or opinions. Let me spell it out as clearly as possible.

I don't identify as a person. I dislike labels, moreso now than ever, because they are inadequate and do not convey sufficient description and meaning. "Person" is one of those labels. "Gender" is another. Why is one dislike of a label and subsequent abandonment of said label acceptable and reasoning, and the other bullshit and unacceptable???

I'm not telling you that you can't be something. Why are you doing that to me? It's not hurting you. It's not insincere. It's not trolling. It's not flaming. It's not baiting. It's not your call. So stop telling me what I get to believe.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Because they're two, separate, entirely unrelated things. It's not an overly difficult concept. The fact you can't understand that is not my problem.

Same reason you can identify as another gender but not as, say, a cat.

Also it's appropriation. And thus, harmful. And thus, I care.

[Susurruses]

Because they're two, separate, entirely unrelated things. It's not an overly difficult concept. The fact you can't understand that is not my problem.

Same reason you can identify as another gender but not as, say, a cat.

Also it's appropriation. And thus, harmful. And thus, I care.

To be honest, they might have a point.
(Although it sounds more of a philosophical stance than a psychological state, I could be wrong.)

I can somewhat understand the position, since I know at least a couple of others that seem to identify in that manner. They consider themselves to be clusters of ideas rather than a defined individual "person".
(Which might seem like semantics, but hey.)

I'm also not sure about it being appropriation?
It sounds like it's perfectly aligned with the likes of asexual, agender, etc.
(In the sense that it's "outside" of the normal spectrum of identity rather than occupying a point)
The issue seems to be that, having not experienced or considered such a perspective/identity, it's being rejected offhand as comparable to identifying as another species entirely.
(I wouldn't think they would argue so vehemently & seem visibly invested emotionally if it weren't truthful)
[Which makes it seem rather harsh, if not discriminatory in a manner akin to transphobia, to keep responding with "No, you can't." when they quite clearly do & harbour no opposition to the variation in gender identity.]

[Arcturus IV]

Because they're two, separate, entirely unrelated things. It's not an overly difficult concept. The fact you can't understand that is not my problem.

Same reason you can identify as another gender but not as, say, a cat.

Also it's appropriation. And thus, harmful. And thus, I care.

No. Identifying as a cat (something which I am not) is not in any way the same as identifying as a set of ideas and concepts (something which I am).

And appropriation, it is not. Even if it were, appropriation isn't necessarily a harmful thing.

I'm fairly sure that arguments very similar to yours were used by the people who protested and fought against the trans* movement in its early days.

Because they're two, separate, entirely unrelated things. It's not an overly difficult concept. The fact you can't understand that is not my problem.

Same reason you can identify as another gender but not as, say, a cat.

Also it's appropriation. And thus, harmful. And thus, I care.

To be honest, they might have a point.
(Although it sounds more of a philosophical stance than a psychological state, I could be wrong.)

I can somewhat understand the position, since know at least a couple of others that seem to identify in that manner. They consider themselves to be clusters of ideas rather than a defined individual "person".
(Which might seem like semantics, but hey.)

I'm also not sure about it being appropriation?
It sounds like it's perfectly aligned with the likes of asexual, agender, etc.
(In the sense that it's "outside" of the normal spectrum of identity rather than occupying a point)
The issue seems to be that, having not experienced or considered such a perspective/identity, it's being rejected offhand as comparable to identifying as another species entirely.
(I wouldn't think they would argue so vehemently & seem visibly invested emotionally if it weren't truthful)
[Which makes it seem rather harsh, if not discriminatory in a manner akin to transphobia, to keep responding with "No, you can't." when they quite clearly do & harbour no opposition to the variation in gender identity.]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this so many times over. I'm almost in tears over this because it's so... I don't even know what to call it at this point. Which is admittedly stupid but... what can I do? What can I do except keep defending my position as best I can?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Because they're two, separate, entirely unrelated things. It's not an overly difficult concept. The fact you can't understand that is not my problem.

Same reason you can identify as another gender but not as, say, a cat.

Also it's appropriation. And thus, harmful. And thus, I care.

To be honest, they might have a point.
(Although it sounds more of a philosophical stance than a psychological state, I could be wrong.)

I can somewhat understand the position, since I know at least a couple of others that seem to identify in that manner. They consider themselves to be clusters of ideas rather than a defined individual "person".
(Which might seem like semantics, but hey.)

Which is fine. I mean, it's a semantic quibble at best, but whatever floats their boat.

My problem is when they start comparing it to being trans*.

I'm also not sure about it being appropriation?
It sounds like it's perfectly aligned with the likes of asexual, agender, etc.
(In the sense that it's "outside" of the normal spectrum of identity rather than occupying a point)

Sure it is. It's utterly distinct from the transgender umbrella for one, and I've yet to see any serious psychological research confirming the existence of what's apparently an extant phenomena. Similarly, I've seen to proof that it shares any of the symptoms of GID (though I reject the pathologization of transgender status, the symptoms most definitely exist, albeit in a variable nature).

The issue seems to be that, having not experienced or considered such a perspective/identity, it's being rejected offhand as comparable to identifying as another species entirely.
(I wouldn't think they would argue so vehemently & seem visibly invested emotionally if it weren't truthful)
[Which makes it seem rather harsh, if not discriminatory in a manner akin to transphobia, to keep responding with "No, you can't." when they quite clearly do & harbour no opposition to the variation in gender identity.]

I am happy to proven wrong on the existence (though I agree, it seems a semantic quibble at best, but then, those have always been the most important).

It's the comparison to trans experiences that I summarily reject, and I'm utterly unconvinced of the real world impact of such an 'identity' regardless.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

This is actually quite germane to the topic? We're talking about forms of identification and how that relates to being transgender.

In fact, I fail to see how this is off topic in the slightest.

[Zweite Alaje]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

Sure people should probably not flail about telling everyone and everything about what they identify as, why shouldn't they be able to use themselves as an example in a thread about gender identity?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

This is actually quite germane to the topic? We're talking about forms of identification and how that relates to being transgender.

In fact, I fail to see how this is off topic in the slightest.

Fine and well then. It isn't a discussion I've been a part of, hence the question in there. It seemed more a back and forth attack/defend between you two with an emphasis on things that had nothing to do with gender at all. Keep it civil at least, neh?

[Arcturus IV]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

No. That's not what I am arguing at all. It's that my specific identity concerning gender and self are deeply interconnected, and by denying one (self) you deny the other (gender). There is a clear-cut discrepancy here. It's a matter of principle, and one which may very well cost me my allegiance to this forum in its entirety depending on the outcome.

I don't care if it sounds petty or like bullshit. It isn't. It's important to me. I'm tired of keeping it to myself due to fear of being dismissed as inconsequential, trivial, invalid, and unacceptable. It's a horrible feeling.

To be honest, they might have a point.
(Although it sounds more of a philosophical stance than a psychological state, I could be wrong.)

I can somewhat understand the position, since I know at least a couple of others that seem to identify in that manner. They consider themselves to be clusters of ideas rather than a defined individual "person".
(Which might seem like semantics, but hey.)

Which is fine. I mean, it's a semantic quibble at best, but whatever floats their boat.

My problem is when they start comparing it to being trans*.

I'm also not sure about it being appropriation?
It sounds like it's perfectly aligned with the likes of asexual, agender, etc.
(In the sense that it's "outside" of the normal spectrum of identity rather than occupying a point)

Sure it is. It's utterly distinct from the transgender umbrella for one, and I've yet to see any serious psychological research confirming the existence of what's apparently an extant phenomena. Similarly, I've seen to proof that it shares any of the symptoms of GID (though I reject the pathologization of transgender status, the symptoms most definitely exist, albeit in a variable nature).

The issue seems to be that, having not experienced or considered such a perspective/identity, it's being rejected offhand as comparable to identifying as another species entirely.
(I wouldn't think they would argue so vehemently & seem visibly invested emotionally if it weren't truthful)
[Which makes it seem rather harsh, if not discriminatory in a manner akin to transphobia, to keep responding with "No, you can't." when they quite clearly do & harbour no opposition to the variation in gender identity.]

I am happy to proven wrong on the existence (though I agree, it seems a semantic quibble at best, but then, those have always been the most important).

It's the comparison to trans experiences that I summarily reject, and I'm utterly unconvinced of the real world impact of such an 'identity' regardless.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your lines of reasoning anymore. What exactly are you trying to say here?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Is this where I point out that this thread is not about you, and just because you yourself feel you are a special little snowflake does not mean everyone else ought to automatically know this about you?

Seriously. Somewhere along the line it seems the argument of 'more than simply male and female exist' seems to have gotten lost in favor of 'me me me me me'. Or have I missed something there?

The topic. Perhaps the involved parties ought to get back to it, yes?

No. That's not what I am arguing at all. It's that my specific identity concerning gender and self are deeply interconnected, and by denying one (self) you deny the other (gender). There is a clear-cut discrepancy here. It's a matter of principle, and one which may very well cost me my allegiance to this forum in its entirety depending on the outcome.

I don't care if it sounds petty or like bullshit. It isn't. It's important to me. I'm tired of keeping it to myself due to fear of being dismissed as inconsequential, trivial, invalid, and unacceptable. It's a horrible feeling.

Which is fine. I mean, it's a semantic quibble at best, but whatever floats their boat.

My problem is when they start comparing it to being trans*.



Sure it is. It's utterly distinct from the transgender umbrella for one, and I've yet to see any serious psychological research confirming the existence of what's apparently an extant phenomena. Similarly, I've seen to proof that it shares any of the symptoms of GID (though I reject the pathologization of transgender status, the symptoms most definitely exist, albeit in a variable nature).



I am happy to proven wrong on the existence (though I agree, it seems a semantic quibble at best, but then, those have always been the most important).

It's the comparison to trans experiences that I summarily reject, and I'm utterly unconvinced of the real world impact of such an 'identity' regardless.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your lines of reasoning anymore. What exactly are you trying to say here?

That identifying as a philosophical concept doesn't make you in any way shape or form trans*, and it's disingenuous, dishonest, and asinine to claim that it either does or has any functional similarity to it.

Much in the same way comparing, say, being nervous during examinations to severe anxiety disorder. Insomnia to PTSD. Sadness to depression.

Except it's not even like that, because at least there's a similar emotion going on there.

[Arcturus IV]

No. That's not what I am arguing at all. It's that my specific identity concerning gender and self are deeply interconnected, and by denying one (self) you deny the other (gender). There is a clear-cut discrepancy here. It's a matter of principle, and one which may very well cost me my allegiance to this forum in its entirety depending on the outcome.

I don't care if it sounds petty or like bullshit. It isn't. It's important to me. I'm tired of keeping it to myself due to fear of being dismissed as inconsequential, trivial, invalid, and unacceptable. It's a horrible feeling.



I'm not sure where you are trying to go with your lines of reasoning anymore. What exactly are you trying to say here?

That identifying as a philosophical concept doesn't make you in any way shape or form trans*, and it's disingenuous, dishonest, and asinine to claim that it either does or has any functional similarity to it.

Much in the same way comparing, say, being nervous during examinations to severe anxiety disorder. Insomnia to PTSD. Sadness to depression.

Except it's not even like that, because at least there's a similar emotion going on there.

But I never said I was trans*. Why is that coming up? I'm saying that my identity is being attacked and labelled as "bullshit", and saying that that's the same line of argument that many people have used to dismiss trans* people in the past. You accept my lack of gender identity, but not my lack of human identity. Why? They are both thoroughly interrelated to each other, and if you negate one, you negate the other.

[The Steel Magnolia]

That identifying as a philosophical concept doesn't make you in any way shape or form trans*, and it's disingenuous, dishonest, and asinine to claim that it either does or has any functional similarity to it.

Much in the same way comparing, say, being nervous during examinations to severe anxiety disorder. Insomnia to PTSD. Sadness to depression.

Except it's not even like that, because at least there's a similar emotion going on there.

But I never said I was trans*. Why is that coming up? I'm saying that my identity is being attacked and labelled as "bullshit", and saying that that's the same line of argument that many people have used to dismiss trans* people in the past. You accept my lack of gender identity, but not my lack of human identity. Why? They are both thoroughly interrelated to each other, and if you negate one, you negate the other.

They're not though. Not in the slightest.

No one lacks human identity. People reject labels, but that's a very different phenomenon and is fundamentally incomparable. Like 'transethnic' or 'transspecies' - it's a myth, and literally the only reason why people claim those identities is to troll and dehumanize actually transgender people.

So forgive me if I'm unsympathetic.

[Arcturus IV]

No one lacks human identity.

And you know this because you are everyone.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can forgive you at this point no matter how much I would like to. Maybe at some point down the road, but not right now. And I think I've made my decision. Arguing with you is obviously not going to change anything, so I'm bowing out.

[The Steel Magnolia]

No one lacks human identity.

And you know this because you are everyone.

I'm sorry, I don't think I can forgive you at this point no matter how much I would like to. Maybe at some point down the road, but not right now. And I think I've made my decision. Arguing with you is obviously not going to change anything, so I'm bowing out.

Feel free to do so.

I'm just not terribly sympathetic to people who decide it's fun to piss all over my people, intentionally or not.

[Hobbeebia]

I fail to see what make Trans-Grender any more or less important to Trans-Identity.. or whatever Artcurus is trying to convey. While some think that being Trans-Gender is a stronger issue than Trans-Identity, I fail to see where one can belittle the other.

Its a simple fact of hipocracy from one to claim that either belittles the other based on a circular logic and reasoning.

E.I.

I'm believe, or think, or feel that I'm a different gender therefor I am- However, no one else can use that reasoning and logic because "I" dont believe your issue is worthy of the same level of attention.

This is complete and utter bull. If you base your entire existence based on this style of thinking it should and must be open for other to exploit or you will in turn invalidate your own extistence. Arcturus is using the same logic and reasoning for Trans-Identity as those who argue for Trans-Genders, yet for all I can see, all Trans-Gender supporters do not afford the same freedom to Arcturus which is one of the purist form of hipocracy.

I'm sure this will gain me ire with a great many people and will garner a number of harsh ill-witten responses, but facts are fact.