TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Rusozak]

So, is the OP actually going to contribute or did they just bring up a controversial topic with no input and run away to watch the fireworks?

[Atheris]

Why would they be pretending about that? They *are* equally as valid.

Nah.

For someone supporting "LGBTQI Rights" that's awfully bigoted of you.

[Necroghastia]

And again, you're ignoring that a) NB people can and often do have dysphoria and b) doing the exact same thing you accuse NB people of doing - reducing their lived experiences to falsehoods to fit your own narrative. Once a-fucking-gain, I defy you to actually show me where NB people don't also support binary trans people.

Oh I'm sure non-binary people say they support binary trans people, in fact I'm fully confident they believe it. But, of course, logically, if we accept their gender identities as valid, we can no longer accept the validity of the most validating explanation of transgender identities, namely, the biological explanation for gender dysphoria, that average neurological features in the brain make a person identify with the male or female gendered persona, and the dysphoria of a binary trans person arises from those neurological features appearing in a person of a biological sex not typically associated with said features. If I accept, for example, that it is possible to be 'agender', i.e. neither 'male' nor 'female' is part of your identity, it completely invalidates any neurological explanation for gender dysphoria, because it casts doubt on whether it is possible for a person to identify as a man or woman for immutable, biological reasons, if 'male' and 'female' are socially-learned constructs that is possible to escape and transcend unilaterally through a category like 'agender'. Same for the claim that you can be 'bigender', which even more explicitly contradicts the idea that it is possible for a trans woman or trans man to identify, for biological and neurological reasons, with a particular gender because of statistical averages in the brain structures of cis men and cis women alike. Etc. etc. etc.

What matters is not whether non-binary people think they are supporting binary trans people. I'm sure they think that sincerely. But their arguments, if accepted, are very dangerous and their logical conclusion is really the invalidation of the dysphoria of binary trans people, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

As far as I'm aware, there have been no such neurological tests on NB people, however, if people with nonbinary sexual characteristics exist, why is it so impossible for people with nonbinary gender characteristics to exist?

[Purgatio]

Because its not? Because as a gay man I haven't been tricked and brainwashed by a cisnormative society into thinking the categories of 'male' and 'female' exist, such that I'm very attracted to one and totally unattracted to the other?

Again, the only one who has said *anything* about that is yourself.

Rather, my distinct sexual and physical reactions to people who present as men, and people who present as women, is rooted in my biologically-determined sexual orientation.

And when people come along and start coming up with quirky identities that necessarily invalidates the gender binary upon which the legitimacy of my entire sexual orientation literally rests, the legitimacy of my identity as a gay man, by pretending that 'male' and 'female' aren't distinct and separate gendered categories (for instance, by claiming you can be legitimately 'bigender' or both at the same time, a claim that directly attacks the legitimacy of my orientation which necessitates distinct, divergent sexual attraction to one gender versus the other),

How do bigender people delegitimize your orientation any more than women do?

but socially-constructed and therefore susceptible to change by the simple creation of new gender identities that are really just personality traits.

Non-binary people don't have an experience that is the same as gay men, lesbian women, bisexuals, and dysphoric binary trans people. They've created identities which they call gender, and if we accept those claims, logically, each of these preceding four identities becomes invalidated and delegitimised in the process.

They really don't, though. How do NB people invalidate binary trans people any more than cis people? How do NB people invalidate gay people any more than straight people?

The existence of women doesn't invalidate my identity as a gay man, which is rooted in the fact that, biologically, I find one gender (women) sexually unattractive, and another gender (men) sexually attractive. The existence of women, cis or trans, validates my orientation because they are one of two genders, and my body has a very different physical and sexual response depending on whether I'm perceiving a man or woman. Both men and women, therefore, validate the legitimacy of my orientation as a gay man. Whereas, bigender people identify as BOTH men AND women, at literally the exact same time. This is a direct attack on my orientation, if I'm attracted to bigender people, I can't really be gay can I, since they are supposedly a woman, but if I'm not attracted to bigender as a whole, well I also can't really be gay, since I'm not attracted to a group of people who identify as male, the gender I'm attracted to. Its a Catch-22 in which the legitimacy of my orientation becomes an impossible conclusion. Or rather, its only impossible if I accept the claim a person can be bigender at all, both a man and a woman simultaneously. I don't, and hence my orientation as a gay man remains valid.

[Liriena]

No. Just no.

Something being a social construct doesn't invalidate it. You are blinded by your own biological essentialism if you think that people who subscribe to social constructivism (including a fuck ton of binary LGBT people) do so in order to undermine the validity of people's identity. When we say something is a social construct, it's not to say that it's not real, that the material experiences that come with it aren't real or legitimate. Nobody, not a single non-binary person, has ever argued that binary trans people's efforts to transition are invalid because gender is a social construct. At most, some people (not exclusively non-binary people) may be critical of some people being overly narrow and biological essentialist in their definition of what makes a person legitimately male or female in terms of physical appearance. Social constructivism doesn't inherently aim to make gender into something "unnecessary", "unimportant", "insignificant" or a fantasy.

You are arguing against a strawman. And what's worse, you're casting yourself as speaking in the name of binary trans people, even though I'm pretty sure most binary trans people would tell you you're full of it here.

Well first of all, as a gay man I'm sure you're well aware that many of the advances our community made in the public eye, in confirming the legitimacy of our sexuality, arose from the growing and now cemented scientific consensus that homosexuality is an orientation, a sexual orientation rooted in biology, an immutable part of who we are, that cannot be changed no matter what.

Trying to argue in favour of our rights on biologically essentialist terms was good optics at the time, but it wasn't good science. Academics have been arguing against biological essentialism on gender and sexuality for decades, since long before Lady Gaga put out "Born this way".

The fact of the matter is that the "born this way" axiom might one day be proven correct, either totally or partially, but as it stands its actual scientific backing is meagre at best. And we have decades of work on the social, psychological and cultural aspects of gender and sexuality.

Very few things about modern human life are principally biological, and that counts for our gender and sexuality as well.

It was important to explain to society that our orientation, our homosexuality, was an inherently natural part of who we are, essential and permanent and enduring to our person, because that grants the orientation a legitimacy that is lacking if homosexuality is viewed as simply a 'choice' that a person can dabble in from time to time like a trend, phase, or novelty fad.

Correct. It was a compelling talking point in a society where the "common sense", the cultural hegemony, still placed a lot of value in biological essentialism. But that didn't make it actually, scientifically correct.

I'm bisexual. Have I always been bisexual, since birth? I have no fucking idea. I don't even remember most of my childhood. I was not even fully aware that I was attraced to people of the same gender as me until I was halfway through high school. I don't know if I was born this way, but it's definitely a comforting thought to think that I was, because it helps emotionally cement the idea that this is an essential part of me, that could never be taken away from me. But the fact of the matter is, you and I don't really know if it is a biological essence that determined our sexual orientations. That doesn't mean that, if later on we found out that it was our social conditions and psychological growth that ultimately decided who we were attracted to, that our identity as gay or bi would be invalidated. Because psychology, even if not rooted in biology, isn't invalid.

You know what other stuff is at least in part socially, psychologically and culturall constructed? Our names. Our passions. Our personalities. My name wasn't coded into my genes. My character traits weren't given to me in the womb. My love for reading and writing weren't there at the moment of my conception. They were all given to me and nurtured throughout my life. That doesn't mean that they are invalid, or that anyone else could unilaterally take them from me. And the same goes for my bisexuality. Whether I was born bi or not, I could not even begin to imagine myself being straight. I can't fathom a life where I'm not bi. I couldn't separate that part of me from the rest of my identity. Even if I wasn't born with it, it's a part of me now and probably will always be a part of me.

Regardless, the view that gender is a social construct, specifically that the gender binary, and the categories 'male' and 'female', are social constructs, is necessarily invalidating of binary trans people and the dysphoria they experience. The whole point of gender dysphoria is, similar to the view that homosexuality is an immutable product of either genetics, epigenetics, hormonal factors, birth order factors, or neurological differences between gay and straight individuals, that it is a psychological condition with immutable, neurological causes, such that a sufferer of gender dysphoria will feel intense alienation, unease, and discomfort when inhabiting the gender persona assigned to them from birth based on their biological sex, with such psychological alienation only resolvable through a process of assimilating into the opposite gender persona, which the person is, owing to reasons of immutable brain structure, neurologically and biologically inclined to psychologically identify with. That entire chain of reasoning rests on an understanding that the gender binary, of 'male' and 'female, is rooted in both biology and, specifically, human neurology. That identification with the categories 'male' or 'female' is not the product of trivial and effervescent social trends, but the biology of the person identifying as such, specifically dysphoric binary trans people.

Cool argument. Quick question, tho: how does a trans person, once diagnosed as gender dysphoric, begin their transition?

Hell, how are they even diagnosed? Do doctors take a look at their brains? Do they do some sort of test to determine whether their brain is distinctively male or female?

I don't see how, when you erase the biological reality of the gender binary and imply there is nothing biological or natural about the gender binary, which is apparently totally socially-constructed, you don't also logically invalidate the legitimacy and severity of the neurologically-caused gender dysphoria suffered by trans men and trans women.

Questioning biological essentialism is not the same as wholesale denying biology as a factor in human life. It's only questioning the historically questionable practice of giving biology all of the credit for who we are. It's not a zero-sum game, you are still strawmanning and, what's worse, your obsessively transmedicalist wording has the unfortunate side-effect of almost pathologizing trans people for being trans.

Also, not all trans people are gender dysphoric.

[VVerkia]

I still don't understand why it invalidate. Maybe i'm not intelligent enough¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

That's not all it takes at all, no one exists outside those parameters, they may think they do, but they don't.

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

[Purgatio]

Plenty of transwomen and transmen are uncomfortable with their identities and struggles being equated with people who don't have dysphoria, change their overly-long identity term daily and are only in it for "euphoria", which is frequently a code word for "fetish".

I realize you're RPing, DI, as that could be the only explanation for this tier of post, but source?

I mean how else does one explain being 'genderfluid'? I perfectly understand if a person is in a temporary state of being psychologically unsure of which gender persona they feel more at ease in, but its altogether different if a person's literal professed gender identity is 'sometimes male, sometimes female, eh, I'll see how I'm feeling'.

[Rusozak]

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

You say it's proven. Prove it.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

I still don't understand why it invalidate. Maybe i'm not intelligent enough¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nah you're intelligent
I think it's just your English communication, as it takes a bit of rewording and rearranging to properly understand you. But your English is still good

[Atheris]

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Is it, really? I'm a firm believer in there only being two genders as well, but I keep an open mind. Gender is the societal differences between the male in female sexes. It's not impossible to say that gender isn't even quantifiable in the first place.

[Mirjt]

You claimed there are only two genders. That is scientifically wrong. If you are using the word gender as a stand-in for human sexes, then there would be three, male, female, and intersex. If you are using the word gender as it is intended by sociologists then the number of genders there are changes based on the social contexts.

Isn't 'intersex' a general term to refer to those of either sex who have abnormal sex chromosomes?

It can refer to any mix of male and female characteristics (not masculine and feminine which are gender descriptions, not sex descriptions). The characteristics can be a set of sex chromosomes which are not male for female (which would be XX for a female, and XY for a male), or it can refer to genetic conditions that result in a mix of primary and secondary sex characteristics, or it can refer to genetic conditions that result in a ratio of steroid hormones that are not in an expected ratio for your sex characteristics or chromosomes or that are distinctly male or female, or it can refer to those whom are in the middle of sex transition or have completed sex transition (if the transitioning person would be comfortable with that term).

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

You say it's proven. Prove it.

It's common sense. A male is born with male parts, a female is born with female parts, THE END. You can't prove there are more genders just because someone says they feel like they're another gender.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

If all it takes to invalidate a binary gendered worldview is to have someone exist outside of those parameters, then you do not have a strong argument that gender is finite and biologically defined. All that need be done is to take a look around and see that it has in fact societally evolved outside of those definitions.

What's the alternative to accepting this? Bigotry? Violence?

That's not all it takes at all, no one exists outside those parameters, they may think they do, but they don't. I can declare myself the modern reincarnation of a dinosaur, it doesn't change the fact I'm a human. I could even get surgery to make myself look like a dinosaur- but I'm still human.

For one, gender dysphoria is a real well-documented condition that may be genetic in nature: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.750222
If, however, you reject that well-established fact, here's another one: how about people who fall outside of XX and XY sex chromosomal makeups? There is a vast variety of chromosomal disorders that cause androgynous features, like XXY. Are those people just "declaring" that they aren't XY?

[Crockerland]

Nah.

For someone supporting "LGBTQI Rights" that's awfully bigoted of you.

Which rights of theirs am I opposing? Oh, none? So not really relevant to bring that up then.

Favoring equal rights for LGBTI people doesn't mean I'm gonna pretend anyone who identifies as LGBTI is above criticism.

And if you're going to put something in quotes make sure you actually get the quote right, there's no "Q."

[Atheris]

You say it's proven. Prove it.

It's common sense. A male is born with male parts, a female is born with female parts, THE END. You can't prove there are more genders just because someone says they feel like they're another gender.

But gender and sex aren't the same thing. Gender is the classification of the societal differences between the male and female sexes.

[Purgatio]

Oh I'm sure non-binary people say they support binary trans people, in fact I'm fully confident they believe it. But, of course, logically, if we accept their gender identities as valid, we can no longer accept the validity of the most validating explanation of transgender identities, namely, the biological explanation for gender dysphoria, that average neurological features in the brain make a person identify with the male or female gendered persona, and the dysphoria of a binary trans person arises from those neurological features appearing in a person of a biological sex not typically associated with said features. If I accept, for example, that it is possible to be 'agender', i.e. neither 'male' nor 'female' is part of your identity, it completely invalidates any neurological explanation for gender dysphoria, because it casts doubt on whether it is possible for a person to identify as a man or woman for immutable, biological reasons, if 'male' and 'female' are socially-learned constructs that is possible to escape and transcend unilaterally through a category like 'agender'. Same for the claim that you can be 'bigender', which even more explicitly contradicts the idea that it is possible for a trans woman or trans man to identify, for biological and neurological reasons, with a particular gender because of statistical averages in the brain structures of cis men and cis women alike. Etc. etc. etc.

What matters is not whether non-binary people think they are supporting binary trans people. I'm sure they think that sincerely. But their arguments, if accepted, are very dangerous and their logical conclusion is really the invalidation of the dysphoria of binary trans people, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

As far as I'm aware, there have been no such neurological tests on NB people, however, if people with nonbinary sexual characteristics exist, why is it so impossible for people with nonbinary gender characteristics to exist?

Well of all the non-binary identities, the one I can sort of understand the most is 'genderqueer', or someone not feeling totally like a man or totally like a woman, which (again, hypothetically) could be the product of a person with a neurology that is somewhere totally intermediate or smack in the middle between the statistical averages of the neurology of most cis men versus that of most cis women.

That still doesn't justify the legitimacy of other non-binary identities, especially 'agender' (not male or female at all, in which case what gender axis are we even operating on, none I suppose, which implies a person's neurology can't make them identify as male or female because of opposite statistical features like grey and white matter ratios pulling apart in two distinct, binary directions between men and women) and 'bigender' (i.e. you can be both male and female at the same time) and 'genderfluid' (i.e. that someone can identify as 100% male on day one and suddenly identify as 100% female on day two).

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

Is it, really? I'm a firm believer in there only being two genders as well, but I keep an open mind. Gender is the societal differences between the male in female sexes. It's not impossible to say that gender isn't even quantifiable in the first place.

I also keep an open mind, especially with these kinds of things, but the arguments that "gender is a social construct" as a proof there are more genders are just meager and inadequate. It's like me saying I'm a reptile because species are a social construct, it just doesn't hold water. I'm still a human, doesn't matter if it's a social construct or not, because the "social construct" is based off of common-sense observations.

[Necroghastia]

Again, the only one who has said *anything* about that is yourself.

How do bigender people delegitimize your orientation any more than women do?

They really don't, though. How do NB people invalidate binary trans people any more than cis people? How do NB people invalidate gay people any more than straight people?

The existence of women doesn't invalidate my identity as a gay man, which is rooted in the fact that, biologically, I find one gender (women) sexually unattractive, and another gender (men) sexually attractive. The existence of women, cis or trans, validates my orientation because they are one of two genders, and my body has a very different physical and sexual response depending on whether I'm perceiving a man or woman. Both men and women, therefore, validate the legitimacy of my orientation as a gay man. Whereas, bigender people identify as BOTH men AND women, at literally the exact same time. This is a direct attack on my orientation, if I'm attracted to bigender people, I can't really be gay can I, since they are supposedly a woman,

No, you can still be gay. I have a good friend who IDs as nonbinary. Their boyfriend still IDs as straight, and they are both comfortable with that.

but if I'm not attracted to bigender as a whole, well I also can't really be gay, since I'm not attracted to a group of people who identify as male, the gender I'm attracted to.

You're not attracted to every male-presenting person you see, right?

Its a Catch-22 in which the legitimacy of my orientation becomes an impossible conclusion. Or rather, its only impossible if I accept the claim a person can be bigender at all, both a man and a woman simultaneously. I don't, and hence my orientation as a gay man remains valid.

Not really. I ID as a lesbian. I would be totally fine dating a femme NB person. It's not that big of a deal. And no one is going to force you at gunpoint to date an NB person if you don't want to.

[BurritoBowl]

You may think there are only two genders, but there aren't

There are, and it's a proven fact and common sense. Just because in the last century some people decided there must be more doesn't make it any more true.

It isn't, and "common sense" isnt a supporting argument. Do you honestly think different gender identities only arrived in the last hundred years or so? Victorian England, the Mongol Horde, ancient Egypt, the Incan Empire, not one trans person? Don't be naiive.

It's certainly more visible now; everything is. We're probably states/nations away from each other and communicating in a matter of minutes.

[VVerkia]

Whereas, bigender people identify as BOTH men AND women, at literally the exact same time. This is a direct attack on my orientation, if I'm attracted to bigender people, I can't really be gay can I, since they are supposedly a woman, but if I'm not attracted to bigender as a whole, well I also can't really be gay, since I'm not attracted to a group of people who identify as male, the gender I'm attracted to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailor_Uranus

[Liriena]

You think overgeneralizing entire identities with unsourced quotes and claims is good and valid?

I think it's good for gay people to rebel against being told our identities, which are non-political biological realities innate to our existence, are the same as identities like "demigirl" or "bigender."

Except no nonbinary person who identifies as bigender is going to think that they're the same as you, a gay man, because sexual orientation and gender identity are different things and anybody who is even remotely LGBT knows that.

Also, being gay is not a "non-political biological reality innate to your existence". "Gay" as a term is historical, political, social and cultural in nature. Being homosexual might be a reality primarily based on biology. "Gay" being widely accepted as a positive synonym for homosexual, to the point that homosexual people will think of themselves as gay, is a historical phenomenon with a lot of political history behind it, which kind of speaks to the problem with you and Purgatio's biological essentialism: with one hand you want to use biological essentialism as a cudgel against non-binary people, while with the other you try to use categories which weren't created and fostered by biological essentialists to define yourselves and those you want to include in your group.

[Liriena]

Raise your hand if you've never felt personally invalidated as an LGB person by the existence of people who identify as neither men nor women.

[Paleoconservative Citizens]

That's not all it takes at all, no one exists outside those parameters, they may think they do, but they don't. I can declare myself the modern reincarnation of a dinosaur, it doesn't change the fact I'm a human. I could even get surgery to make myself look like a dinosaur- but I'm still human.

For one, gender dysphoria is a real well-documented condition that may be genetic in nature: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 013.750222
If, however, you reject that well-established fact, here's another one: how about people who fall outside of XX and XY sex chromosomal makeups? There is a vast variety of chromosomal disorders that cause androgynous features, like XXY. Are those people just "declaring" that they aren't XY?

My argument isn't that gender dysphoria isn't real, my argument is that it doesn't effect or change a person's gender, just their perception of it. Those who fall outside of these genders as a cause of different chromosomes are defected, whether you like the term or not. The natural chromosomes are XX and XY, anything else is a defect. And defects in sex don't create new genders.

[Liriena]

I'm literally subscribed to Blaire White

Well, duh. Transmedicalists need transmedicalist propagandists to reinforce their beliefs, after all.