Postgender

[Hatterleigh]

Ok, where is the evidence for the existence of nonbinary genders? How can a human, cis or trans, not be male or female?

People who identify as non-binary exist and have varying degrees of cultural and social recognition throughout history. Gender being a social construct, that's pretty much all the evidence you need: self-identification and social and cultural recognition.

Except there have been much, much more societies that thought of gender as a binary, and also of the societies that believed in a third gender, this was usually backed up by sexual orientations, gender dysphoria, or cultural reasonings. Not to mention that these societies were not scientifically advanced and there is no basis aside from cultural aspect in what these folks believed. Even in some of these more important cultures, many of the "third genders" are rather obscure.

In fact, a vast majority of these "Third Genders" correlate directly to intersex and transgender

[Auze]

Clearly the solution is to do away with all this gender nonsense and categorize people based on sex.

Obviously the solution is to get rid of the sexes altogether and make everyone hermaphrodites (and I mean biological, not intersex).

[Liriena]

Do you even know what gender is?

Can you not take a joke? Plus, gender is decided at birth and it determines your role in creating life. It is not a social construct nor is it disconnected from sex in any way

It took you three weeks to come up with that response?

Geesh, discourse is in the gutter these days.

[Liriena]

People who identify as non-binary exist and have varying degrees of cultural and social recognition throughout history. Gender being a social construct, that's pretty much all the evidence you need: self-identification and social and cultural recognition.

Except there have been much, much more societies that thought of gender as a binary,

Which changes nothing. The legitimacy of a social construct is not predicated by the sheer number of societies which embrace it. It's not a popularity contest.

and also of the societies that believed in a third gender, this was usually backed up by sexual orientations, gender dysphoria, or cultural reasonings. Not to mention that these societies were not scientifically advanced and there is no basis aside from cultural aspect in what these folks believed. Even in some of these more important cultures, many of the "third genders" are rather obscure.

In fact, a vast majority of these "Third Genders" correlate directly to intersex and transgender

None of what you said challenges the legitimacy of third genders.

[Liriena]

I deny that you have the right to compel me to accept whatever gender du jour you have chosen for yourself.

I mean, yeah, we all have the human right to act like douchebags. And we all have the right to roll our eyes and shoo away the people who act like douchebags because life has enough pointless negativity as it is without us throwing "you literally don't exist" at people who clearly do exist.

[Ohioan Territory]

I feel like this is an extremely trivial matter. Such a loud topic for God knows why. I don't care how people choose to live their lives so long as they're abiding by the law and all that.

Real problems come in legislation--i.e., people identifying themselves on their IDs with the gender that they identify as--and mental problems within the transgender community. The suicide rates are awful. Something that should probably be addressed, somehow.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I deny that you have the right to compel me to accept whatever gender du jour you have chosen for yourself.

I mean, yeah, we all have the human right to act like douchebags. And we all have the right to roll our eyes and shoo away the people who act like douchebags because life has enough pointless negativity as it is without us throwing "you literally don't exist" at people who clearly do exist.

"You are not actually the gender you identify as" does not equal "You do not exist" or "You should have no human rights."

[Liriena]

I mean, yeah, we all have the human right to act like douchebags. And we all have the right to roll our eyes and shoo away the people who act like douchebags because life has enough pointless negativity as it is without us throwing "you literally don't exist" at people who clearly do exist.

"You are not actually the gender you identify as" does not equal "You do not exist" or "You should have no human rights."

In practice, it kinda does. What's the practical, policy-wise consequence of a "non-binary people's gender isn't real" view? Certainly not "you deserve legal recognition and protection against discrimination", huh?

[Senkaku]

I mean, yeah, we all have the human right to act like douchebags. And we all have the right to roll our eyes and shoo away the people who act like douchebags because life has enough pointless negativity as it is without us throwing "you literally don't exist" at people who clearly do exist.

"You are not actually the gender you identify as" does not equal "You do not exist" or "You should have no human rights."

"You're incorrect about your own identity, it's really this" seems to verge on the former, anyways.

[Liriena]

"You are not actually the gender you identify as" does not equal "You do not exist" or "You should have no human rights."

"You're incorrect about your own identity, it's really this" seems to verge on the former, anyways.

And as I said, the practical political application of that idea will necessarily translate into "you should have no human rights". If not, then the idea that "you are not actually the gender you identify as" would just be meaningless, pointless white noise or the rhetorical equivalent of a fart sound.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

"You're incorrect about your own identity, it's really this" seems to verge on the former, anyways.

And as I said, the practical political application of that idea will necessarily translate into "you should have no human rights". If not, then the idea that "you are not actually the gender you identify as" would just be meaningless, pointless white noise or the rhetorical equivalent of a fart sound.

That exact same argument could be applied to otherkin saying "If you don't accept me as what I identify as, you necessarily think I have no human rights." When it's quite obvious that calling otherkin human when they wish to be called a wolf or a cat is not going to remove their human rights in theory or in practice. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that trans people and otherkin are the same, I'm only comparing them insofar as your argument would apply equally to both.

[Aillyria]

And as I said, the practical political application of that idea will necessarily translate into "you should have no human rights". If not, then the idea that "you are not actually the gender you identify as" would just be meaningless, pointless white noise or the rhetorical equivalent of a fart sound.

That exact same argument could be applied to otherkin saying "If you don't accept me as what I identify as, you necessarily think I have no human rights." When it's quite obvious that calling otherkin human when they wish to be called a wolf or a cat is not going to remove their human rights in theory or in practice. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that trans people and otherkin are the same, I'm only comparing them insofar as your argument would apply equally to both.

Exactly, a line must be drawn. A society cannot allow everything to be permitted, especially categorization based on mere whim. Accepting ridiculous "identities" that aren't physically humanly possible should be outright denied, rejected, and opposed. You can't be an other species, or a third gender, or multiple genders, or different genders at different times. It's not a human rights violation to suppress this idiocy. You are born your gender, whether you be cis or trans, and you are either male or female, point blank, case closed.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That exact same argument could be applied to otherkin saying "If you don't accept me as what I identify as, you necessarily think I have no human rights." When it's quite obvious that calling otherkin human when they wish to be called a wolf or a cat is not going to remove their human rights in theory or in practice. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that trans people and otherkin are the same, I'm only comparing them insofar as your argument would apply equally to both.

Exactly, a line must be drawn. A society cannot allow everything to be permitted, especially categorization based on mere whim. Accepting ridiculous "identities" that aren't physically humanly possible should be outright denied, rejected, and opposed. You can't be an other species, or a third gender, or multiple genders, or different genders at different times. It's not a human rights violation to suppress this idiocy. You are born your gender, whether you be cis or trans, and you are either male or female, point blank, case closed.

I don't quite agree. When it comes to trans people, I'm on the fence as to whether or not they're the gender they identify as because it really depends. If they've transitioned, they clearly have dedication that warrants them being considered the gender they identify as, but I despise transtrenders who go "I'm a brand new 'demi-ultra-queer' and since nobody knows what that is, that makes me infinitely-oppressed. Misgendering me is violence."

Though I agree, otherkin and transtrenders are obviously wrong about what they identify as, I think they are still well within their rights to identify themselves as whatever they please. I mean, if you don't have the freedom to be wrong, what freedom do you have? That said, people have every right to not recognize that identity.

[Liriena]

That exact same argument could be applied to otherkin saying "If you don't accept me as what I identify as, you necessarily think I have no human rights." When it's quite obvious that calling otherkin human when they wish to be called a wolf or a cat is not going to remove their human rights in theory or in practice. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that trans people and otherkin are the same, I'm only comparing them insofar as your argument would apply equally to both.

Exactly, a line must be drawn.

Why on gender, tho? Human civilization can handle the existence of a hundred different brands of soda, a wide variety of fictional cinematic and literary canons, and we even allow ourselves to fine-tune our religions and call every relatively small variation a denomination in its own right.

We can have a thousand varieties of Christianity, but we can't handle more than two genders? Does humanity have some sort of oddly specific collective intellectual disability that makes us incapable of functioning with more than two genders?

A society cannot allow everything to be permitted, especially categorization based on mere whim.

Define "mere whim".

Accepting ridiculous "identities" that aren't physically humanly possible

[citation needed] on both "ridiculous" and "aren't physically humanly possible".

You can't be an other species, or a third gender, or multiple genders, or different genders at different times. It's not a human rights violation to suppress this idiocy. You are born your gender, whether you be cis or trans, and you are either male or female, point blank, case closed.

Clearly, it's not "case closed" because non-binary people insist on existing, and just screaming "you're not real" at them isn't making them go away, so what else have you got?

[Liriena]

And as I said, the practical political application of that idea will necessarily translate into "you should have no human rights". If not, then the idea that "you are not actually the gender you identify as" would just be meaningless, pointless white noise or the rhetorical equivalent of a fart sound.

That exact same argument could be applied to otherkin

There's a world of difference between gender and species, tho, so not really.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that trans people and otherkin are the same, I'm only comparing them insofar as your argument would apply equally to both.

So? That doesn't make the argument good or bad.

When your response to the existence of non-binary people is "you're not real", one necessarily wonders what that attitude is going to translate into in practical terms, because non-binary people exist and are part of our society right now. Are you going to refuse them legal recognition? Will you refuse them the right to appear in their documentation with the name and gender they prefer? Will you refuse them protections from employment, housing or services discrimination?

[Liriena]

but I despise transtrenders who go "I'm a brand new 'demi-ultra-queer' and since nobody knows what that is, that makes me infinitely-oppressed. Misgendering me is violence."

So you despise a made-up group of people. That's silly.

That said, people have every right to not recognize that identity.

But what would "not recognize that identity" mean, in practical terms? Are you going to actively deadname and misgender every non-binary person you meet out of ideological zeal?

[Aillyria]

Exactly, a line must be drawn.

1.)Why on gender, tho? Human civilization can handle the existence of a hundred different brands of soda, a wide variety of fictional cinematic and literary canons, and we even allow ourselves to fine-tune our religions and call every relatively small variation a denomination in its own right.

We can have a thousand varieties of Christianity, but we can't handle more than two genders? Does humanity have some sort of oddly specific collective intellectual disability that makes us incapable of functioning with more than two genders?

A society cannot allow everything to be permitted, especially categorization based on mere whim.

2.)Define "mere whim".

Accepting ridiculous "identities" that aren't physically humanly possible

3.)[citation needed] on both "ridiculous" and "aren't physically humanly possible".

You can't be an other species, or a third gender, or multiple genders, or different genders at different times. It's not a human rights violation to suppress this idiocy. You are born your gender, whether you be cis or trans, and you are either male or female, point blank, case closed.

4.)Clearly, it's not "case closed" because non-binary people insist on existing, and just screaming "you're not real" at them isn't making them go away, so what else have you got?

1.) No, it's the same reason we should oppose Flat Earthers. It's a lie about the nature of reality.
2.) Mere whim, like "gender fluidity".
3.) You want a citation for something that is an obvious impossiblity......
4.) Yeah, they're no different than breathairians thinking they can survive on the prana in the air. They can think they're some magical non binary twelfth gender or some shit, but it isn't consistent with reality.

[Ifreann]

Exactly, a line must be drawn.

Why on gender, tho? Human civilization can handle the existence of a hundred different brands of soda, a wide variety of fictional cinematic and literary canons, and we even allow ourselves to fine-tune our religions and call every relatively small variation a denomination in its own right.

We can have a thousand varieties of Christianity, but we can't handle more than two genders? Does humanity have some sort of oddly specific collective intellectual disability that makes us incapable of functioning with more than two genders?

A society cannot allow everything to be permitted, especially categorization based on mere whim.

Define "mere whim".

Accepting ridiculous "identities" that aren't physically humanly possible

[citation needed] on both "ridiculous" and "aren't physically humanly possible".

You can't be an other species, or a third gender, or multiple genders, or different genders at different times. It's not a human rights violation to suppress this idiocy. You are born your gender, whether you be cis or trans, and you are either male or female, point blank, case closed.

Clearly, it's not "case closed" because non-binary people insist on existing, and just screaming "you're not real" at them isn't making them go away, so what else have you got?

Something something degenerates something something.

[Liriena]

1.)Why on gender, tho? Human civilization can handle the existence of a hundred different brands of soda, a wide variety of fictional cinematic and literary canons, and we even allow ourselves to fine-tune our religions and call every relatively small variation a denomination in its own right.

We can have a thousand varieties of Christianity, but we can't handle more than two genders? Does humanity have some sort of oddly specific collective intellectual disability that makes us incapable of functioning with more than two genders?


2.)Define "mere whim".


3.)[citation needed] on both "ridiculous" and "aren't physically humanly possible".


4.)Clearly, it's not "case closed" because non-binary people insist on existing, and just screaming "you're not real" at them isn't making them go away, so what else have you got?

1.) No, it's the same reason we should oppose Flat Earthers. It's a lie about the nature of reality.
2.) Mere whim, like "gender fluidity".
3.) You want a citation for something that is an obvious impossiblity......
4.) Yeah, they're no different than breathairians thinking they can survive on the prana in the air. They can think they're some magical non binary twelfth gender or some shit, but it isn't consistent with reality.

1.) Source?
2.) That's not a definition of "mere whim". How is gender fluidity a "mere whim"?
3.) Yes.
4.) Source?

[Luziyca]

Eh. As someone who knows plenty of non-binary folks, I don't really give a shit as to how they live their lives: I'll address them the way they wish to be addressed, and I will respect that.

But personally, I think the main issues affecting the LGBT+ community right now is identification laws, which in an ideal world, there'd be three choices (male, female, and other) that can be selected at the age of eighteen. I'd focus more on ensuring identification laws that enable people to choose (probably not the best term) who they identify as for governmental purposes, as well as not having laws that punish people from using the "wrong" bathroom.

[Greed and Death]

I deny that you have the right to compel me to accept whatever gender du jour you have chosen for yourself.

Jordan Peterson is that you?

[Ifreann]

I don't give a shit if you're trans as long as you don't force me to adapt to you every fucking time.

Which is to say, you want to force everyone to adapt to you.

[New Emeline]

I don't give a shit if you're trans as long as you don't force me to adapt to you every fucking time.

Which is to say, you want to force everyone to adapt to you.

I don't get the whole "forcing me to adapt thing". Usually all it consists of is saying a different word than what you are used to.

[Greed and Death]

Which is to say, you want to force everyone to adapt to you.

I don't get the whole "forcing me to adapt thing". Usually all it consists of is saying a different word than what you are used to.

Language is a consensus area.

[Zottistan]

It's recently been striking me as a little bit odd that dealing with gender seems like pretty much the only circumstance in which an individual's own feelings and opinions on the matter decide their identity. In all other cases I can think of your identity is negotiated between your own opinion on the one hand and the opinions of peers and society in general on the other, usually favouring the latter. Like you can personally identify as funny or smart or whatever, but unless your peer group accepts that as true it doesn't become your identity. That woman who identified as transethnically black springs to mind. I'm open to having my mind changed on this but I don't see why identity is treated differently in the circumstance of gender than in all other circumstance.

None of this is exactly an attack or criticism of the transgender phenomenon as such, of course, because there are a host of other factors at play, oftentimes including hard biology, and it's meant as more a question I'd like cleared up than an attack.