Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Cekoviu]

Tarsonis makes a good point, while gender and sex are not the same thing, saying the two are independent of eachother removes a lot of context from many issues.

Yeah, I'm trans and I'd have to say that gender and sex are correlated. Doesn't mean they're the same thing or they have to be equivalent, but most people of a certain sex will have a gender identity matching it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There's a rather strong correlation between gender and sex, yes. Membership of e-hugboxes shouldn't ever obscure our eyes from the reality that we're very much the exception rather than the rule lest we make ourselves look rather foolish.

I agree with Tarsonis on genderqueer and agender identities being different expressions and self-understandings based on a similar sense of distance from the accepted gender roles during formative periods of self-identity. For all the micro-variations, it's all different ways that people have come to understand themselves as being basically the same thing, rather than really representing a series of fundamentally different identities. As many such people don't experience dysphoria it's difficult to make a case for it being anything else.

As such, I've always though it much more useful to push for a generic third option when it comes to legal recogniton rather than a free for all of self-definition, and can only respect those who stick to the actually existing pronouns of he, she or they, as no-one is seriously disadvantaged by not having recognition specifically as demigender, bigender, agender, neutrois or whatever. Nor are they legitimately marginalised when people refuse to integrate freshly made-up pronouns into their vocabulary. If the small group of people who do such things could possibly piss off that'd be just grand.

[Auzkhia]

Hot take: Biological sex is also a social construct. I know what people mean when they say sex and gender aren't the same thing, that's technically true too. The idea that certain sexual traits are male or female is the social construct. In colloquial speech, people often use sex and gender as if they are the same words, even they aren't exactly the same. Words change over time, though, so maybe saying sex for an identity could fall out of favor. New pronouns could come into favor, or maybe they never catch-on, and English speakers default to they/them, for gender-neutrality and the sake of non-binary people too. Other languages that use gender could benefit from that too. As an L2 German speaker, I could literally translate my pronouns, but the standard neutral response is use both he and she, I'd certainly like Xier/xien/xiem to become popular. Even if it just makes a small amount of people happy, I see no harm in adopting inclusive language. Maybe one day, gender neutrality in language won't be such a hot button issue.

The least that could be done would have a third sex marker on ids, or better yet, why does my state's transport department need to know either my gender or sex? As it stands, I consider it wrong, but the other option I feel is wrong too. The exact definition of my gender is a bit vague sometimes, that's not bad, but I at least know I am gendequeer and an androgyne for sure. Thus being referred to as male is wrong, but if you were to point out my body, to that I say, how can I have a man's body when I am not a man. Using sexual traits as a basis of identity is just weird, since identities are socially construct, we can't know how other animals identify themselves. The roles too come from society too, and there are universal roles or expressions either that are consistent in place and time. Gender is a very immaterial, abstract, even arbitrary concept, but for some it's a part of their personality that formed through social, inter-human experience. For me, being treated as genderqueer, is more pleasant.

[Tarsonis]

Hot take: Biological sex is also a social construct. I know what people mean when they say sex and gender aren't the same thing, that's technically true too. The idea that certain sexual traits are male or female is the social construct. In colloquial speech, people often use sex and gender as if they are the same words, even they aren't exactly the same. Words change over time, though, so maybe saying sex for an identity could fall out of favor. New pronouns could come into favor, or maybe they never catch-on, and English speakers default to they/them, for gender-neutrality and the sake of non-binary people too. Other languages that use gender could benefit from that too. As an L2 German speaker, I could literally translate my pronouns, but the standard neutral response is use both he and she, I'd certainly like Xier/xien/xiem to become popular. Even if it just makes a small amount of people happy, I see no harm in adopting inclusive language. Maybe one day, gender neutrality in language won't be such a hot button issue.

The least that could be done would have a third sex marker on ids, or better yet, why does my state's transport department need to know either my gender or sex? As it stands, I consider it wrong, but the other option I feel is wrong too. The exact definition of my gender is a bit vague sometimes, that's not bad, but I at least know I am gendequeer and an androgyne for sure. Thus being referred to as male is wrong, but if you were to point out my body, to that I say, how can I have a man's body when I am not a man. Using sexual traits as a basis of identity is just weird, since identities are socially construct, we can't know how other animals identify themselves. The roles too come from society too, and there are universal roles or expressions either that are consistent in place and time. Gender is a very immaterial, abstract, even arbitrary concept, but for some it's a part of their personality that formed through social, inter-human experience. For me, being treated as genderqueer, is more pleasant.

By this logic gravity is a social construct.

[Luminesa]

Hot take: Biological sex is also a social construct. I know what people mean when they say sex and gender aren't the same thing, that's technically true too. The idea that certain sexual traits are male or female is the social construct. In colloquial speech, people often use sex and gender as if they are the same words, even they aren't exactly the same. Words change over time, though, so maybe saying sex for an identity could fall out of favor. New pronouns could come into favor, or maybe they never catch-on, and English speakers default to they/them, for gender-neutrality and the sake of non-binary people too. Other languages that use gender could benefit from that too. As an L2 German speaker, I could literally translate my pronouns, but the standard neutral response is use both he and she, I'd certainly like Xier/xien/xiem to become popular. Even if it just makes a small amount of people happy, I see no harm in adopting inclusive language. Maybe one day, gender neutrality in language won't be such a hot button issue.

The least that could be done would have a third sex marker on ids, or better yet, why does my state's transport department need to know either my gender or sex? As it stands, I consider it wrong, but the other option I feel is wrong too. The exact definition of my gender is a bit vague sometimes, that's not bad, but I at least know I am gendequeer and an androgyne for sure. Thus being referred to as male is wrong, but if you were to point out my body, to that I say, how can I have a man's body when I am not a man. Using sexual traits as a basis of identity is just weird, since identities are socially construct, we can't know how other animals identify themselves. The roles too come from society too, and there are universal roles or expressions either that are consistent in place and time. Gender is a very immaterial, abstract, even arbitrary concept, but for some it's a part of their personality that formed through social, inter-human experience. For me, being treated as genderqueer, is more pleasant.

I’ve mentioned the xier/xiem/xien issue with a friend who happens to be studying to be a linguist, and as we were talking he essentially said that xier/xiem/xien is not going to become popular simply because people are told to use this word. They’ll become popular if they become part of the casual lexicon, if people actually start to use these words by themselves. New words and phrases travel around, some of them become popular and some do not. This is not one that has spread to widespread use, to my knowledge or his. Most languages anyway are gendered in some way.

And I mean...going as far as saying, “Literally everything related to sex is a social concept” is kinda silly. Even if you argue that gender or sex is a spectrum, a spectrum still implies there are points along that spectrum which we clearly label as having certain attributes. XX means you are biologically a girl, XY means you are biologically a boy, XXY means you are a boy with an extra-X chromosome, XXX is a girl with an extra chromosome, and so on. Without going into the argument of whether or not gender and sex are the same, geneticists literally study chromosomes to tell what is atypical in a person’s karyotype.

[Luminesa]

So have I. I can find a single professor to claim the Roswell incident was a plot by Stalin to scare Americans, doesn't make it true. Those "communities" you speak of, by and large do not accept your claim.

Prove it.

That's not saying much.





Good.




A self created "other" gender expressed as a mix of traits from both genders.

I imagine several of the agender posters here will have several things to say about that.

By definition, not norm.



Science does account for its existence, and for the existence of intersex.

One is the result of a recessive gene pairing, the other through improper gene sequencing.

True, by definition Red hair wouldn't be considered "normal" either. It's a deviation form the statistical norm, and reaching for them as "proof" is as faulty as reaching for intersex.

God, that's a lazy and stupid argument. That last sentence alone arguably implies that "red" shouldn't be a valid description of somebody's natural hair color, simply because it deviates from the statistical norm.

By this same logic, nobody who isn't a 20-something Han Chinese guy named Mohammed is valid.

Only if they all skipped the classes on Punnett Squares, and Sexual Reproduction.


I never shy from an argument

Then you have the time to "explain the birds and the bees".

Haha, sidestepping all the information that proves you wrong and only responding to the cheeky dig. Politics might be a good field for you.

No, more like simply not arguing with points that I don't disagree with.

Except it doesn't violate my claims, not if you understand how biological sex works.

If you say so.

Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.

I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on your time.

The “durr durr I expected more from a Yale grad” argument again? Also, pretty sure accusing someone of trolling is against the rules, if you think he’s trolling then report him.

[Neutraligon]

There's a rather strong correlation between gender and sex, yes. Membership of e-hugboxes shouldn't ever obscure our eyes from the reality that we're very much the exception rather than the rule lest we make ourselves look rather foolish.

I agree with Tarsonis on genderqueer and agender identities being different expressions and self-understandings based on a similar sense of distance from the accepted gender roles during formative periods of self-identity. For all the micro-variations, it's all different ways that people have come to understand themselves as being basically the same thing, rather than really representing a series of fundamentally different identities. As many such people don't experience dysphoria it's difficult to make a case for it being anything else.

As such, I've always though it much more useful to push for a generic third option when it comes to legal recogniton rather than a free for all of self-definition, and can only respect those who stick to the actually existing pronouns of he, she or they, as no-one is seriously disadvantaged by not having recognition specifically as demigender, bigender, agender, neutrois or whatever. Nor are they legitimately marginalised when people refuse to integrate freshly made-up pronouns into their vocabulary. If the small group of people who do such things could possibly piss off that'd be just grand.

...how does a person being incapable of feeling dysphoria have anything to do with distancing themselves from gender roles?

[Auzkhia]

Hot take: Biological sex is also a social construct. I know what people mean when they say sex and gender aren't the same thing, that's technically true too. The idea that certain sexual traits are male or female is the social construct. In colloquial speech, people often use sex and gender as if they are the same words, even they aren't exactly the same. Words change over time, though, so maybe saying sex for an identity could fall out of favor. New pronouns could come into favor, or maybe they never catch-on, and English speakers default to they/them, for gender-neutrality and the sake of non-binary people too. Other languages that use gender could benefit from that too. As an L2 German speaker, I could literally translate my pronouns, but the standard neutral response is use both he and she, I'd certainly like Xier/xien/xiem to become popular. Even if it just makes a small amount of people happy, I see no harm in adopting inclusive language. Maybe one day, gender neutrality in language won't be such a hot button issue.

The least that could be done would have a third sex marker on ids, or better yet, why does my state's transport department need to know either my gender or sex? As it stands, I consider it wrong, but the other option I feel is wrong too. The exact definition of my gender is a bit vague sometimes, that's not bad, but I at least know I am gendequeer and an androgyne for sure. Thus being referred to as male is wrong, but if you were to point out my body, to that I say, how can I have a man's body when I am not a man. Using sexual traits as a basis of identity is just weird, since identities are socially construct, we can't know how other animals identify themselves. The roles too come from society too, and there are universal roles or expressions either that are consistent in place and time. Gender is a very immaterial, abstract, even arbitrary concept, but for some it's a part of their personality that formed through social, inter-human experience. For me, being treated as genderqueer, is more pleasant.

I’ve mentioned the xier/xiem/xien issue with a friend who happens to be studying to be a linguist, and as we were talking he essentially said that xier/xiem/xien is not going to become popular simply because people are told to use this word. They’ll become popular if they become part of the casual lexicon, if people actually start to use these words by themselves. New words and phrases travel around, some of them become popular and some do not. This is not one that has spread to widespread use, to my knowledge or his. Most languages anyway are gendered in some way.

In the case of German, it'd be nice to make that stick. In English, I use they/them, hardly a neopronoun, since the singular they dates back to the 14th century middle English, and people do use that all the time, often without realizing it. German retained more inflections and declensions that English. I have my facebook account in German, and the neutral version in English is "Wish them a happy birthday" but in German, facebook would say "Wünsch ihm/ihr alles Gute zum Geburtstag!".

At the very least, I'm doing my effort to create inclusive language and only use gendered terms for people I know whom want it.

[Jakker]

:roll: Okay. See you in a week when you can muster another half assed response.

I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on your time.

The exchange between you two is getting fairly heated, so I'd recommend you two being mindful to not letting things escalate further. Furthermore, if you suspect someone is trolling in the general sense, might make sense to ignore them. If they are trolling in the against forum rules sense, report it.

[Tarsonis]

I'm sorry that my personal life doesn't allow me to respond to your blatant trolling on your time.

The exchange between you two is getting fairly heated, so I'd recommend you two being mindful to not letting things escalate further. Furthermore, if you suspect someone is trolling in the general sense, might make sense to ignore them. If they are trolling in the against forum rules sense, report it.

It might seem heated but honestly this is pretty lukewarm for us

[Luminesa]

I’ve mentioned the xier/xiem/xien issue with a friend who happens to be studying to be a linguist, and as we were talking he essentially said that xier/xiem/xien is not going to become popular simply because people are told to use this word. They’ll become popular if they become part of the casual lexicon, if people actually start to use these words by themselves. New words and phrases travel around, some of them become popular and some do not. This is not one that has spread to widespread use, to my knowledge or his. Most languages anyway are gendered in some way.

In the case of German, it'd be nice to make that stick. In English, I use they/them, hardly a neopronoun, since the singular they dates back to the 14th century middle English, and people do use that all the time, often without realizing it. German retained more inflections and declensions that English. I have my facebook account in German, and the neutral version in English is "Wish them a happy birthday" but in German, facebook would say "Wünsch ihm/ihr alles Gute zum Geburtstag!".

At the very least, I'm doing my effort to create inclusive language and only use gendered terms for people I know whom want it.

I mean, yeah, I use “they”, but that’s because “they” has been taught to me to be a common part of the English lexicon. The problem is you creating “inclusive” language doesn’t mean people are going to use it. Now I can’t say I know much German, is “ihr/ihm” an actual word in German? If it is, is it actually an equivalent of “they” in the English language?

[Auzkhia]

In the case of German, it'd be nice to make that stick. In English, I use they/them, hardly a neopronoun, since the singular they dates back to the 14th century middle English, and people do use that all the time, often without realizing it. German retained more inflections and declensions that English. I have my facebook account in German, and the neutral version in English is "Wish them a happy birthday" but in German, facebook would say "Wünsch ihm/ihr alles Gute zum Geburtstag!".

At the very least, I'm doing my effort to create inclusive language and only use gendered terms for people I know whom want it.

I mean, yeah, I use “they”, but that’s because “they” has been taught to me to be a common part of the English lexicon. The problem is you creating “inclusive” language doesn’t mean people are going to use it. Now I can’t say I know much German, is “ihr/ihm” an actual word in German? If it is, is it actually an equivalent of “they” in the English language?

No, it's basically just He/she. Their word for they is the same as she. There's "es" but that's "it" in English, not really helpful. Though I could sie and be conjugated in the plural.

Even if some people don't, doesn't mean I shouldn't bother, I am not a he nor a she. One language I speak shouldn't have to restrict me.\

Though being in Germany would be good, if I had to live in another country, they now have a third sex option on official IDs.

[Luminesa]

I mean, yeah, I use “they”, but that’s because “they” has been taught to me to be a common part of the English lexicon. The problem is you creating “inclusive” language doesn’t mean people are going to use it. Now I can’t say I know much German, is “ihr/ihm” an actual word in German? If it is, is it actually an equivalent of “they” in the English language?

No, it's basically just He/she. Their word for they is the same as she. There's "es" but that's "it" in English, not really helpful. Though I could sie and be conjugated in the plural.

Even if some people don't, doesn't mean I shouldn't bother, I am not a he nor a she. One language I speak shouldn't have to restrict me.\

Though being in Germany would be good, if I had to live in another country, they now have a third sex option on official IDs.

Oh I thought you were actually in Germany. I dunno, don’t mind me.

[Cekoviu]

And I mean...going as far as saying, “Literally everything related to sex is a social concept” is kinda silly. Even if you argue that gender or sex is a spectrum, a spectrum still implies there are points along that spectrum which we clearly label as having certain attributes. XX means you are biologically a girl, XY means you are biologically a boy, XXY means you are a boy with an extra-X chromosome, XXX is a girl with an extra chromosome, and so on. Without going into the argument of whether or not gender and sex are the same, geneticists literally study chromosomes to tell what is atypical in a person’s karyotype.

There is a HUGE problem with your terminology here and it's not even that you're implying biological sex exists: "girl" and "boy" are not equivalent terms to "male" and "female". Yes, XX is the chromosomal makeup for a genetic female, but girl and boy mean "young human with a gender identity equating to male/female", not just "male/female." You cannot use them as synonyms, because girl and boy are sociological terms while male and female are (in this case) biological terms.
Auzkhia is correct in stating that biological sex doesn't exist as a monolithic structure -- there are many different things that may be considered your sex for medical or biological purposes, not simply genes. For endocrinological purposes, I would be considered female because that matches my hormone distribution, but for genetic analysis, I would be considered male.

[Luminesa]

And I mean...going as far as saying, “Literally everything related to sex is a social concept” is kinda silly. Even if you argue that gender or sex is a spectrum, a spectrum still implies there are points along that spectrum which we clearly label as having certain attributes. XX means you are biologically a girl, XY means you are biologically a boy, XXY means you are a boy with an extra-X chromosome, XXX is a girl with an extra chromosome, and so on. Without going into the argument of whether or not gender and sex are the same, geneticists literally study chromosomes to tell what is atypical in a person’s karyotype.

There is a HUGE problem with your terminology here and it's not even that you're implying biological sex exists: "girl" and "boy" are not equivalent terms to "male" and "female". Yes, XX is the chromosomal makeup for a genetic female, but girl and boy mean "young human with a gender identity equating to male/female", not just "male/female." You cannot use them as synonyms, because girl and boy are sociological terms while male and female are (in this case) biological terms.
Auzkhia is correct in stating that biological sex doesn't exist as a monolithic structure -- there are many different things that may be considered your sex for medical or biological purposes, not simply genes. For endocrinological purposes, I would be considered female because that matches my hormone distribution, but for genetic analysis, I would be considered male.

Uhhhhhh as far as I know “boy” means “male” and “girl” means “female”. If the doctor takes the baby out the womb and yells to the mom, “IT’S A BOY!” it’s because he knows that the genetic makeup of the baby means they are male. “Boy” and “girl” can be used for both sex and gender, and it’s rather pedantic I think to police people’s language over something so small. Most people probably aren’t thinking about when they’re having a casual conversation. In fact if you were to walk up to someone and say, “Um, no that’s not a ‘boy’ you’re referring to, it’s a ‘male’,” I’m pretty sure you’d either get a weird look or a slap.

[Page]

I’ve mentioned the xier/xiem/xien issue with a friend who happens to be studying to be a linguist, and as we were talking he essentially said that xier/xiem/xien is not going to become popular simply because people are told to use this word. They’ll become popular if they become part of the casual lexicon, if people actually start to use these words by themselves. New words and phrases travel around, some of them become popular and some do not. This is not one that has spread to widespread use, to my knowledge or his. Most languages anyway are gendered in some way.

In the case of German, it'd be nice to make that stick. In English, I use they/them, hardly a neopronoun, since the singular they dates back to the 14th century middle English, and people do use that all the time, often without realizing it. German retained more inflections and declensions that English. I have my facebook account in German, and the neutral version in English is "Wish them a happy birthday" but in German, facebook would say "Wünsch ihm/ihr alles Gute zum Geburtstag!".

At the very least, I'm doing my effort to create inclusive language and only use gendered terms for people I know whom want it.

Yeah, German is difficult for gender neutral pronouns, you can't just use "they" like in English since "sie" is already "she" and "they" and "Sie" is the formal "you." Think of the poor learners who would have to learn yet another context for "sie", heads would explode.

But as for English, the singular "they" is the only way to go. People use it already, people used it way before they ever heard of such concepts as non-binary gender.

My go to argument for people who refuse to use gender neutral pronouns in English is to trick them into using the singular "they" and say "see, you're doing it already!"

[Western Vale Confederacy]

"Xier/Xiem/Xien"?

I'm not exactly sure what the f*ck those words are, but I'll be perfectly honest here...

They sound as illogical as "Latinx" (and the hypermajority of Latin language speakers will tell you that it does not match the Latin pronouns, which are gendered and will most likely stay so for a long time).

I don't see the point in trying to shove a cube into a circular hole, it just won't work.

[Page]

"Xier/Xiem/Xien"?

I'm not exactly sure what the f*ck those words are, but I'll be perfectly honest here...

They sound as illogical as "Latinx" (and the hypermajority of Latin language speakers will tell you that it does not match the Latin pronouns, which are gendered and will most likely stay so for a long time).

I don't see the point in trying to shove a cube into a circular hole, it just won't work.

I think the singular they is the only good fit for English as a universally acceptable pronoun, but other languages will actually have to come up with something new; for example German can't use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun for reasons I explained above.

As for Latinx, I might be wrong but I think that's mainly just a writing word and it's not actually meant to be pronounced, though I've never heard anyone try to say it.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

"Xier/Xiem/Xien"?

I'm not exactly sure what the f*ck those words are, but I'll be perfectly honest here...

They sound as illogical as "Latinx" (and the hypermajority of Latin language speakers will tell you that it does not match the Latin pronouns, which are gendered and will most likely stay so for a long time).

I don't see the point in trying to shove a cube into a circular hole, it just won't work.

I think the singular they is the only good fit for English as a universally acceptable pronoun, but other languages will actually have to come up with something new; for example German can't use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun for reasons I explained above.

As for Latinx, I might be wrong but I think that's mainly just a writing word and it's not actually meant to be pronounced, though I've never heard anyone try to say it.

Pronouncing the word "Latinx" is practically undoable due to how illogical it sounds.

At the very worst, "Latin" IS the gender-neutral term, no need to slap an X at the end.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There's a rather strong correlation between gender and sex, yes. Membership of e-hugboxes shouldn't ever obscure our eyes from the reality that we're very much the exception rather than the rule lest we make ourselves look rather foolish.

I agree with Tarsonis on genderqueer and agender identities being different expressions and self-understandings based on a similar sense of distance from the accepted gender roles during formative periods of self-identity. For all the micro-variations, it's all different ways that people have come to understand themselves as being basically the same thing, rather than really representing a series of fundamentally different identities. As many such people don't experience dysphoria it's difficult to make a case for it being anything else.

As such, I've always though it much more useful to push for a generic third option when it comes to legal recogniton rather than a free for all of self-definition, and can only respect those who stick to the actually existing pronouns of he, she or they, as no-one is seriously disadvantaged by not having recognition specifically as demigender, bigender, agender, neutrois or whatever. Nor are they legitimately marginalised when people refuse to integrate freshly made-up pronouns into their vocabulary. If the small group of people who do such things could possibly piss off that'd be just grand.

...how does a person being incapable of feeling dysphoria have anything to do with distancing themselves from gender roles?

What I am saying in that paragraph is that, where there's no dysphoria, non-binary identities do not involve substantially different visions in terms of visions of the body. And in terms of presentation and social behaviour, anyone from any of the non-binary identities can look like any of the others - so when you break it down there is nothing fundamentally socially or materially distinct amongst any of them except in the head of the person. We have "they" as an existing neutral term, and so a request to use "they" as a pronoun is comprehensible. If you're of a non-binary gender, very few people are interested in it and at best they will mentally file you off into a generic "other" or "mixed" category. A request to use "xie" or whatever is a rejection of the existing social vocabulary and the insertion of a new neutral word, yes - but no new social "meaning" is created by this, and so it is simply the creation of inconvenience for self-centred, political, or narcissistic purposes. Similarly, a very specific microgender rather than a generic third gender option on a passport would provide nothing of interest or import to anyone looking at it, it will just have created bureaucratic inconvenience in setting up the system and eliminating "troll" answers such as "crusaderkin" aimed at offending the border staff of other countries.

[Mattopilos II]

...how does a person being incapable of feeling dysphoria have anything to do with distancing themselves from gender roles?

What I am saying in that paragraph is that, where there's no dysphoria, non-binary identities do not involve substantially different visions in terms of visions of the body. And in terms of presentation and social behaviour, anyone from any of the non-binary identities can look like any of the others - so when you break it down there is nothing fundamentally socially or materially distinct amongst any of them except in the head of the person. We have "they" as an existing neutral term, and so a request to use "they" as a pronoun is comprehensible. If you're of a non-binary gender, very few people are interested in it and at best they will mentally file you off into a generic "other" or "mixed" category. A request to use "xie" or whatever is a rejection of the existing social vocabulary and the insertion of a new neutral word, yes - but no new social "meaning" is created by this, and so it is simply the creation of inconvenience for self-centred, political, or narcissistic purposes. Similarly, a very specific microgender rather than a generic third gender option on a passport would provide nothing of interest or import to anyone looking at it, it will just have created bureaucratic inconvenience in setting up the system and eliminating "troll" answers such as "crusaderkin" aimed at offending the border staff of other countries.

That's because its being taken from the position of a statist, bureaucratic person who sees the use of new language or categories as a burden to how they act. I don't think that is a very useful way to look at it, and I think it ignores how many categories have been created in human history, and they carry at best a value neutral gain for society as a whole. The only people who would see it as a burden are those that don't like change (traditionalists in all their stripes), or people who look at it from some strange straw-bureaucratic stance that for some reason talks for everyone. You have to remember new things all the time, you have to make new distinctions all the time. Just because this one seems to run someone the long way because of some social stigma or some feeling of hatred (because something something "biology"), doesn't make your argument stand up all that well on its own.

[Dumb Ideologies]

What I am saying in that paragraph is that, where there's no dysphoria, non-binary identities do not involve substantially different visions in terms of visions of the body. And in terms of presentation and social behaviour, anyone from any of the non-binary identities can look like any of the others - so when you break it down there is nothing fundamentally socially or materially distinct amongst any of them except in the head of the person. We have "they" as an existing neutral term, and so a request to use "they" as a pronoun is comprehensible. If you're of a non-binary gender, very few people are interested in it and at best they will mentally file you off into a generic "other" or "mixed" category. A request to use "xie" or whatever is a rejection of the existing social vocabulary and the insertion of a new neutral word, yes - but no new social "meaning" is created by this, and so it is simply the creation of inconvenience for self-centred, political, or narcissistic purposes. Similarly, a very specific microgender rather than a generic third gender option on a passport would provide nothing of interest or import to anyone looking at it, it will just have created bureaucratic inconvenience in setting up the system and eliminating "troll" answers such as "crusaderkin" aimed at offending the border staff of other countries.

That's because its being taken from the position of a statist, bureaucratic person who sees the use of new language or categories as a burden to how they act. I don't think that is a very useful way to look at it, and I think it ignores how many categories have been created in human history, and they carry at best a value neutral gain for society as a whole. The only people who would see it as a burden are those that don't like change (traditionalists in all their stripes), or people who look at it from some strange straw-bureaucratic stance that for some reason talks for everyone. You have to remember new things all the time, you have to make new distinctions all the time. Just because this one seems to run someone the long way because of some social stigma or some feeling of hatred (because something something "biology"), doesn't make your argument stand up all that well on its own.

Your argument is internally consistent and well-made, but reliant on a very particular ontology/epistemology, anarchistic politics, and a very radical conception of the dynamic between the individual and society that very few people share.

To avoid threadjacking into a debate on your wider ideology, I will merely observe that you're requiring us to imagine how this would be handled in a non-statist, non-bureaucratic society characterised by a radical egoistic individualism, a framework in which we currently do not live. I do not believe that such a conception of society is sustainable or desirable, but without engaging in that much wider debate we're only going to talk past each other.

[Cekoviu]

There is a HUGE problem with your terminology here and it's not even that you're implying biological sex exists: "girl" and "boy" are not equivalent terms to "male" and "female". Yes, XX is the chromosomal makeup for a genetic female, but girl and boy mean "young human with a gender identity equating to male/female", not just "male/female." You cannot use them as synonyms, because girl and boy are sociological terms while male and female are (in this case) biological terms.
Auzkhia is correct in stating that biological sex doesn't exist as a monolithic structure -- there are many different things that may be considered your sex for medical or biological purposes, not simply genes. For endocrinological purposes, I would be considered female because that matches my hormone distribution, but for genetic analysis, I would be considered male.

Uhhhhhh as far as I know “boy” means “male” and “girl” means “female”. If the doctor takes the baby out the womb and yells to the mom, “IT’S A BOY!” it’s because he knows that the genetic makeup of the baby means they are male.

No, it's not. Doctors don't perform karyotypes immediately after birth, they look at the genitalia of the baby, which do not necessarily have to be the same as what the genome of the baby would imply. The fact that doctors assume the gender of a child based on their genitalia is a huge issue, but it does not mean "boy/girl" and "male/female" are interchangeable.

Most people probably aren’t thinking about when they’re having a casual conversation.

And that's a problem.

In fact if you were to walk up to someone and say, “Um, no that’s not a ‘boy’ you’re referring to, it’s a ‘male’,” I’m pretty sure you’d either get a weird look or a slap.

Why would I do that? "Boy" is still a useful term, but my point is that "boy" and "male" are not synonyms. If you were to call a 60-year-old man a "boy", you would certainly be the one to get weird looks, while calling him "male" is perfectly normal, if clinical.

[Cekoviu]

"Xier/Xiem/Xien"?

I'm not exactly sure what the f*ck those words are, but I'll be perfectly honest here...

They sound as illogical as "Latinx" (and the hypermajority of Latin language speakers will tell you that it does not match the Latin pronouns, which are gendered and will most likely stay so for a long time).

I don't see the point in trying to shove a cube into a circular hole, it just won't work.

I think the singular they is the only good fit for English as a universally acceptable pronoun, but other languages will actually have to come up with something new; for example German can't use "they" as a gender neutral pronoun for reasons I explained above.

As for Latinx, I might be wrong but I think that's mainly just a writing word and it's not actually meant to be pronounced, though I've never heard anyone try to say it.

I have heard people pronounce it as just "latin", then "X".

[Hediacrana]

As for Latinx, I might be wrong but I think that's mainly just a writing word and it's not actually meant to be pronounced, though I've never heard anyone try to say it.

I have heard people pronounce it as just "latin", then "X".

My understanding is that 'Latinx' is pronounced 'Latinex.'