Non-binary genders

[Nazi Flower Power]

You know those arguments people like to make about how race is a meaningless social construct? Those could just as well be applied to gender.

People claim this, but it's not true.
You don't get equality by pretending differences don't exist.
(You just get covert discrimination rather than overt)

Also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7104001083

I'm not saying people are all the same. I'm saying it's a waste of time to come up with 20 bazillion different labels for "genders" just so you can categorize all the people who aren't super-macho manly men or flowery pink girly girls. You can let people live how they want to live without building up all these artificial categories.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Your language implies you think that binary gender is okay for kids.
(Ignoring that adults are just more developed children and identity is partially derived from childhood experience?)
Gender roles are dumb, but gender itself is a thing that exists and should be acknowledged.

Your initial assumption is correct, I think that gender is a legitimate construct for children.

Once they reach puberty and develop their unique sexual identity in their sexuality, gender should be shucked off, just as with many other things children get rid of as they mature into adults. Gender is to sexual identity as training wheels are to bicycles.

Some children have ambiguous gender or are obviously transgendered from an early age.

[Ashlak]

Gender identity itself is not a social construct, though many things built up around it are, like gender roles. Just because something isn't essentialist, doesn't mean that it's a social construct by default. Gender is a real, actual, personal, internal thing, much like sexual orientation is. The belief that gender is a social construct is an argument made by transphobic radical feminists to make light of, and cast doubt on, the experiences of transgender people.

As for race, humans are all way to genetically similar for there to be separate "races" in the biological sense, so yes, race technically is a social construct. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx

[Wikipedia and Universe]

There are two biological sexes. In regards to gender, you can call yourself whatever you want.

I agree. I don't remember who it was who said it (though it could have been someone on here), but a mnemonic I like is "Sex is between the legs, while gender is between the ears."

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Firstly, yes, there is a scale. In the same way that there isn't just hetero-bi-homo with bisexuality being exactly and inflexibly in the middle, so you can have different "degrees" of feeling masculine and feminine and androgynous and otherwise genderqueer.

Secondly, Empty Closets is an active and safe forum for LGBT folk figuring out their identities as well as coming out to others. I can't help you, but others there might be able to.

Thanks a lot. I will give it a look when I feel like doing new buddies (for this moment now, I'm already quite busy here).

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Gender identity itself is not a social construct, though many things built up around it are, like gender roles. Just because something isn't essentialist, doesn't mean that it's a social construct by default. Gender is a real, actual, personal, internal thing, much like sexual orientation is. The belief that gender is a social construct is an argument made by transphobic radical feminists to make light of, and cast doubt on, the experiences of transgender people.

As for race, humans are all way to genetically similar for there to be separate "races" in the biological sense, so yes, race technically is a social construct. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx

Yeah, while I still wasn't anxious about my body and the way someday I would look like my father when I was still very young and getting the most delicate looks in my family line for 5 generations of men, and even when fat I was still a gorgeous child and looked as if you radically splatted together the cuttest things in both Europeans and East Asians, I already felt the gender roles I would take someday wouldn't be remotely close to those people associate with macho boys.

I like sensitive things, always hated boys' toys, did never remotely like any games or TV shows that had to do with people fighting except for Dragon Ball (because it was a pretty epic series regardless), among many other things, as far as I remember of myself, like 4. I tried to hide it close to group and most other boys out of fear of being a reason of mockery, and was indeed kind of a bully in pre-school, and that was how my male friendships were such a bond of sincerity, closeness and reciprocity that when I was 7, they started to develop into the biggest crushes.

Furthermore I was genius, never tested but people guessed my IQ would score above 140, before about age 8, and I always knew that in this place intellectuality would be seen as negative and be a reason for charicature. But I exposed it because all adults showed extremely high empathy and fondness toward me and it was instrumental in me being unaccessable to peer-origined psychological violence regardless, and it ended up hiding my less salient "sissy" traits that only my best friends knew, and understood.

When I was in a place that I was not very smart but instead somewhat smart-dumb that really becomes a useless person because of immaturity, because I ended up there because entering there required big ass competition, and all my traits other than what people interpreted as intelligence were salient, I was very, very, very, very, very, very bullied. So I know.

There are many other boys like me, and others in situation more extreme, and though rarer it also affects girls, many but not all of them end up being LGBT and people say it is truth we don't choose it because they all know a relative with those traits... Well, while I can't say for others, I'm pretty sure it was always part of me.

[Breadknife]

There are two biological sexes. In regards to gender, you can call yourself whatever you want.

I agree. I don't remember who it was who said it (though it could have been someone on here), but a mnemonic I like is "Sex is between the legs, while gender is between the ears."

Well, I posted this, here, but it was not even my own original thought at the time....

[Grenartia]

1. Gender identity itself is not a social construct, though many things built up around it are, like gender roles. Just because something isn't essentialist, doesn't mean that it's a social construct by default. 2. Gender is a real, actual, personal, internal thing, much like sexual orientation is. 3. The belief that gender is a social construct is an argument made by transphobic radical feminists to make light of, and cast doubt on, the experiences of transgender people.

As for race, humans are all way to genetically similar for there to be separate "races" in the biological sense, so yes, race technically is a social construct. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx

1. Actually, it is.
2. Just because its a social construct, doesn't make it any less real. After all, even things like language are social constructs. [/basic sociology]
3. No.

There are two biological sexes. In regards to gender, you can call yourself whatever you want.

I agree. I don't remember who it was who said it (though it could have been someone on here), but a mnemonic I like is "Sex is between the legs, while gender is between the ears."

I've been known to say it (for at least a year), but in all honesty, I got it from Chaz Bono.

[Ashlak]

1. Gender identity itself is not a social construct, though many things built up around it are, like gender roles. Just because something isn't essentialist, doesn't mean that it's a social construct by default. 2. Gender is a real, actual, personal, internal thing, much like sexual orientation is. 3. The belief that gender is a social construct is an argument made by transphobic radical feminists to make light of, and cast doubt on, the experiences of transgender people.

As for race, humans are all way to genetically similar for there to be separate "races" in the biological sense, so yes, race technically is a social construct. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/184.aspx

1. Actually, it is.
2. Just because its a social construct, doesn't make it any less real. After all, even things like language are social constructs. [/basic sociology]
3. No.

1. Nope.
2. When something is called a social construct, it means that something is made up, and not innate. We make up languages, but gender identity, while not essentialist, is innate. If it wasn't, then David Reimer should have had no problem identifying as female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
3. Many radical feminists during the second wave where very transphobic. They used the belief that gender is a social construct to give credence to their transphobia, because after all, if gender were purely a social construct and not innate, then gender dysphoria shouldn't exist. "You're not a real women, you're just a feminine man who wants to invade our safespaces!" or "You're not a man, you're a butch woman whose been brainwashed by the Patriarchy!" were common things said to transgender people.

[Nazi Flower Power]

1. Actually, it is.
2. Just because its a social construct, doesn't make it any less real. After all, even things like language are social constructs. [/basic sociology]
3. No.

1. Nope.
2. When something is called a social construct, it means that something is made up, and not innate. We make up languages, but gender identity, while not essentialist, is innate. If it wasn't, then David Reimer should have had no problem identifying as female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
3. Many radical feminists during the second wave where very transphobic. They used the belief that gender is a social construct to give credence to their transphobia, because after all, if gender were purely a social construct and not innate, then gender dysphoria shouldn't exist. "You're not a real women, you're just a feminine man who wants to invade our safespaces!" or "You're not a man, you're a butch woman whose been brainwashed by the Patriarchy!" were common things said to transgender people.

Just because some people were dicks doesn't mean it's not a social construct. If you identify as black, and someone comes along and says, "You're not a real black person! You're just a wigger!" that's pretty dickish. And that sort of thing does happen.

I don't really think gender or race are entirely social constructs. They're a mix of biological traits and socially constructed baggage.

But if you're going to say that one of them is a social construct (which lots of people around here, including yourself, do for race), then you should be consistent and say that both are. There are people whose race is ambiguous and there are people whose gender is ambiguous. In both cases, the only way to settle the issue is for people to self-identify. There are no clear biological divisions between genders any more than there are for races.

So what justification do you have to say that gender is biological and race is a construct?

[Bravooon]

I aknowlegdge and I accept with no discrimination

[Ashlak]

1. Nope.
2. When something is called a social construct, it means that something is made up, and not innate. We make up languages, but gender identity, while not essentialist, is innate. If it wasn't, then David Reimer should have had no problem identifying as female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
3. Many radical feminists during the second wave where very transphobic. They used the belief that gender is a social construct to give credence to their transphobia, because after all, if gender were purely a social construct and not innate, then gender dysphoria shouldn't exist. "You're not a real women, you're just a feminine man who wants to invade our safespaces!" or "You're not a man, you're a butch woman whose been brainwashed by the Patriarchy!" were common things said to transgender people.

Just because some people were dicks doesn't mean it's not a social construct. If you identify as black, and someone comes along and says, "You're not a real black person! You're just a wigger!" that's pretty dickish. And that sort of thing does happen.

I don't really think gender or race are entirely social constructs. They're a mix of biological traits and socially constructed baggage.

But if you're going to say that one of them is a social construct (which lots of people around here, including yourself, do for race), then you should be consistent and say that both are. There are people whose race is ambiguous and there are people whose gender is ambiguous. In both cases, the only way to settle the issue is for people to self-identify. There are no clear biological divisions between genders any more than there are for races.

So what justification do you have to say that gender is biological and race is a construct?

I recognize that. This doesn't change the fact that it isn't a social construct.

Then we're in agreement, then, at least on gender. I have stated that I believe gender roles to be socially constructed.

How come if one is a social construct, the other one has to be to? Why can't one be a social construct and the other not be? That's just sounds like lazy thinking. I also never said that gender is biological, it is an innate...thing, I don't know the word for it, that people feel. If gender wasn't innate, then the very real feeling of gender dysphoria would not exist at all. I believe race to be a social construct because the genetics of all human "races" are all way too similar to be actual races.

[Nazi Flower Power]

How come if one is a social construct, the other one has to be to?
Why can't one be a social construct and the other not be? That's just sounds like lazy thinking.

Because the situations are the same. Both are people taking a continuum of natural variation and dividing it into arbitrary categories.

I also never said that gender is biological, it is an innate...thing, I don't know the word for it, that people feel. If gender wasn't innate, then the very real feeling of gender dysphoria would not exist at all.

Gender dysphoria is from being pressured to be someone you're not. Your image of who you want to be and how you want to live is innate. The label attached to it -- "male," "female," "androgynous," etc. -- is an arbitrary social construct.

I believe race to be a social construct because the genetics of all human "races" are all way too similar to be actual races.

If that proves that race is a social construct, then it also proves that gender is. Unless there are massive genetic differences between genders...

[Ienner]

(Oops, pardon me, just elbowing in here...) Er... hi.

Non-binary here (gender-fluid etc. etc.), would like to say that gender in and of itself is definitely not a social construct, while gender roles and labels are. Forced to present as female (due to "great rack", augh), it is definitely difficult to explain why I use the labels I do, because a lot of people aren't educated on non-binary gender labels or the fact that non-binary people even exist.

Labels of any sort are a construct, because labels involve language, which is a difficult idea in and of itself, because languages and cultures other than English and Western/White European generally do have non-binary genders, along with different social statuses and gender roles associated with such. However, that doesn't mean labels don't have impact on people and society (whoa definitely not), because social constructs are definitely just as real and definitive as the actual genders that we have a lot of the time - while there are people who prefer not to use labels in general.

I think a lot of trouble comes from the fact that labels aren't clearly taught to children or even adults, and leave people guessing at their genders for a while in quite a few cases. (I know it took me ages to figure out, no, I'm not a woman; no, I'm not a man; I think I'll stay somewhere in the middle for the most part.)

Just my opinion, though, obviously. Not a trained professional or sociology genius, so feel free to disregard me!

[Ashlak]

How come if one is a social construct, the other one has to be to?
Why can't one be a social construct and the other not be? That's just sounds like lazy thinking.

Because the situations are the same. Both are people taking a continuum of natural variation and dividing it into arbitrary categories.

I also never said that gender is biological, it is an innate...thing, I don't know the word for it, that people feel. If gender wasn't innate, then the very real feeling of gender dysphoria would not exist at all.

Gender dysphoria is from being pressured to be someone you're not. Your image of who you want to be and how you want to live is innate. The label attached to it -- "male," "female," "androgynous," etc. -- is an arbitrary social construct.

I believe race to be a social construct because the genetics of all human "races" are all way too similar to be actual races.

If that proves that race is a social construct, then it also proves that gender is. Unless there are massive genetic differences between genders...

The situations may be the same, but the subjects, race and gender are not. That's like saying that since homosexuality is a taboo that gets discriminated against unjustly, so must pedophilia. Hey, pedophilia is about being sexually attracted to something that many societies says is a taboo, much like homosexuality, so that means that pedophilia is unjustly discriminated against as well! Same situations, different concepts, different conclusions.

I agree. I have stated that I believe some things built around gender identity to be social constructs.

Are you seriously not able to discern the difference between race and gender? For groups of homo sapiens to be considered separate races, they have to be significantly genetically different. They aren't, we are all way too genetically similar for that to be. Whereas gender is primarily based on an innate feeling of identity.

Is there a point in continuing this? I think we've gotten to that point where we're just hammering the same points at each other over and over again with none of us giving ground.

[Distruzio]

Why wouldnt i recognize them? I may be a prick at times but im no asshat. Im a libertarian anarchist. If there should be multiple exoressions of society then i certainly cant deny the nonbinary genders. Im an epistomological anarchist. If there is more than one way to accumulate knowledge then i certainly cant deny the nonbinary genders. Im a Christian. If Jesus wont look at a prick like me in disgust i certainly cant deny nonbinary genders.

[Bottle]

2. When something is called a social construct, it means that something is made up, and not innate. We make up languages, but gender identity, while not essentialist, is innate. If it wasn't, then David Reimer should have had no problem identifying as female. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Are you seriously trying to use David Reimer to support the idea of INNATE GENDER??

A kid whose parents enforced rigid gender roles on him to try to "make him a girl," and who reacted the way a lot of use GIRLS react to those roles by saying, "Fuck that"?

A kid who was subjected to this kind of bullshit (from your source):

"Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements," with David playing the bottom role.[4] David Reimer painfully recalled that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks".[4] Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top.[4] Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections."[4] On at "least one occasion," Dr. Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.[4] Dr. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity."[4]"

He was given a warped, artificial, frankly disturbing vision of what it means to be female, and he rejected it. Good for him.

And guess what? My born-with-a-vagina-and-XX-chromosomes self reached precisely the same conclusion after years of being told that girls must wear dresses and play house. I hated all that garbage, I hated the way female people are innately valued less and denied access to the full experience of being human, and if I had found out that I was born male I would have jumped at the chance to escape the prison that female people get stuck in.

If anything, David Reimer is conclusive proof of how profoundly fucked up children are by the ways adults force them to perform artificial gender roles.

[The Blaatschapen]

Buried under the gay rights and abortion threads, it's a gender related thread. A non-binary gender thread, oooh.

Anyways, do you acknowledge non-binary genders?

For those of you who don't know, non-binary genders are all the genders besides male and female. This includes, but is not limited to, agender, pangender, androgynous, bigender, and trigender (My apologies if I forgot anything).

I acknowledge non-binary genders. Even if they're a small percentage, there are more genders than male and female. After all, it isn't hurting anyone to have more than male and female.

Agender (non-gender): “not identifying with any gender, the feeling of having no gender.”

Androgyne: “1. A person whose biological sex is not readily apparent. 2. A person who is intermediate between the two traditional genders. 3. A person who rejects gender roles entirely.”

Bigender: “To identify as both genders and/or to have a tendency to move between masculine and feminine gender-typed behavior depending on context, expressing a distinctly male persona and a distinctly female persona, two separate genders in one body.”

Gender fluid: “Referring to a gender identity that changes with time and/or situation as opposed to a fix sex-role or gender queer expression"

Pangender: “A person whose gender identity is comprised of many gender expressions."

Trigender: “People who feel they are neither male nor female, but not androgynous either and construct their own gender.” Trigender may also be used to refer to one who moves between three genders, as bigender is used to refer to those who move between two genders."

Are there also descriptions of the binary genders? I know they are called "male" and "female", but what does the gender 'male' mean? Sure, male gender role. But what does that entail?

I still don't know this. Does anybody have an answer to this?

[Anachronous Rex]

Are there also descriptions of the binary genders? I know they are called "male" and "female", but what does the gender 'male' mean? Sure, male gender role. But what does that entail?

I still don't know this. Does anybody have an answer to this?

"Male" has something to do with walking down roads, but I guess there's some debate over the actual numbers involved.

[The Truth and Light]

Yes, I'm genderqueer, and I exist.

[West German Empire]

And how do you define those genders?

Man - somebody who has male reproductive organs.
Female - somebody who has female reproductive organs.

Why exactly do you believe in the gender binary?

You are either a man or a woman. You have the traits and anatomy of one or the other.

How do you explain hermaphrodites and intersexed people ?

[Shnercropolis]

Yes necessarily. Women who claim to be masculine but in fact do not have a testosterone level more than 1.5 standard deviations above the mean of all women are lying or confused or both.

And guys who claim to be masculine but have a testosterone level more than 1 standard deviation below the mean (of all men) are similarly incorrect.

Nah but that's not what you said. You said being male requires higher testosterone. Which just flat out isn't true, as being male only required identifying as such.

(Also you don't get to tell people they're lying or confused or both).

I define "male" by the metric I defined. Can you provide a better metric?

[Rocopurr]

Man - somebody who has male reproductive organs.
Female - somebody who has female reproductive organs.



You are either a man or a woman. You have the traits and anatomy of one or the other.

How do you explain hermaphrodites and intersexed people ?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure those are the same thing. Hermaphrodite is just a derogatory term for intersex people.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Nah but that's not what you said. You said being male requires higher testosterone. Which just flat out isn't true, as being male only required identifying as such.

(Also you don't get to tell people they're lying or confused or both).

I define "male" by the metric I defined. Can you provide a better metric?

Sure.

"I identify as male."

That was easy!

[The Steel Magnolia]

How do you explain hermaphrodites and intersexed people ?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure those are the same thing. Hermaphrodite is just a derogatory term for intersex people.

More specific, to be exact.

and also derogatory.