Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Non-binary gender
Topic Started: Jan 12 2017, 08:43 PM (853 Views)
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

A discussion about gender dysphoria, non-binary genders etc that began elsewhere, basically centring on what it is, does it exist as we know it etc, anybody feel free to join in (I may repeat myself just to establish my point to people who may want to jump in).

Quote:
 
But, society defines concepts all the time and they're always accepted. Race isn't real, technically, we're all humans, just from different parts of the world and raised in different cultures. But everyone accepts those distinctions. Money is a human made system and concept, that we assign values to ourselves, but that's accepted. Social constructs are a way for humans to talk to others about how we feel and to define the world around us. Just because they're social constructs, or man made, doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Labels aren't bad when we use them for ourselves.


The thing is, I feel exactly the same way about race as I do about gender: labels only need to exist in as much as there is to look at e.g. there are different skin colours, just as there are different genetalia, and none of those labels need to have any impact on a person's identity or personality. So yes, I agree that race doesn't really exist because we're all human. I don't think money is comparable because I'm not saying all man-made concepts shouldn't be accepted, nor does one being accepted mean all should be, I'm just discussing the concept of 'gender' and it's merits, and I feel that outside of labeling somebody by how their body is i.e. penis/male, vagina/female, everything else only exists because of how society has evolved, and can quite easily change it's definition, or disappear entirely. The only thing that doesn't change is the body, so any other labels are unnecessary.

Quote:
 
Why is it silly to categorize gender in a way that fits to us personally?

Because if we were all to categorise things in order to fit us personally, we would have 7 billion different categories for everyone to fall in. Personality is such a unique and complex thing that it seems silly to try and categorise it. But a body is quite simple to categorise. I don't see why people can't just accept that pronouns like 'he' or 'she' do not in anyway refer to your personality, nor is it trying to accurately sum up who you are as a person, it's just a mechanic of language to refer to somebody using the quickest identifier short of just saying 'human'.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


I guess I should probably start by responding, too.

Quote:
 
I don't know how many examples I have to link you to show it's not a new thing and it's certainly not a 'fad'. On the topic of sexuality, different from gender, I am actually bisexual myself. So many people see heterosexual as the norm that they think of other sexualities as fads, especially if you're heterosexual yourself, and it's simply not true. (this was in reference to your first post, not the one made recently. I saw that after I posted.)

But it is a new thing. "Agender" or "non-binary" as we know it today is not the same as Calalai and Calabai in Indonesia. I'll quote the explanations again for anyone interested:

Quote:
 
Calalai are anatomical females who take on many of the roles and functions expected of men. For instance, Rani works alongside men as a blacksmith, shaping kris, small blades and other knives. Rani wears men's clothing and ties hir sarong in the fashion of men. Rani also lives with hir wife and their adopted child, Erna. While Rani works with men, dresses as a man, smokes cigarettes, and walks alone at night, which are all things women are not encouraged to do, Rani is female and therefore not considered a man. Nor does Rani wish to become a man. Rani is calalai. Rani's female anatomy, combined with hir occupation, behaviour, and sexuality, allows Rani to identify, and be identified, as a calalai.

Calabai, conversely, are anatomical males who, in many respects, adhere to the expectations of women. However, calabai do not consider themselves women, are not considered women. Nor do they wish to become women, either by accepting restrictions placed on women such as not going out alone at night, or by recreating their body through surgery. However, whereas calalai tend to conform more to the norms of men, calabai have created a specific role for themselves in Bugis society.


This is agender as we know it today: http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Agender

Notice that the Calalai and Calabai are described as "male" or "female" with characteristics representative of the opposite gender. "Agender," however, is entirely genderless. They reject both genders because they reject social stereotypes. Agender has nothing to do with biology--rather, it is a fruitless rejection of social constructs. In my opinion it is pointless to label yourself as such, but I will not disrespect anyone who chooses to do so. It simply isn't my thing.

I say that this is a "fad," and I stand by that statement. Just because something is a fad doesn't mean that it isn't true for specific individuals.
Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Jan 12 2017, 08:52 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Seruphim
Member Avatar
Cell's Angel

Quote:
 
labels only need to exist in as much as there is to look at e.g. there are different skin colours, just as there are different genetalia, and none of those labels need to have any impact on a person's identity or personality.


When I said it, I meant in relation to the fact that we are all of the human species. Biologically, we are not ducks or aliens or w/e. However, we most certainly have different cultures, which are social constructs, and those do define and impact our identities and personalities. That is beyond skin color and what you can 'look at'.

Quote:
 
I feel that outside of labeling somebody by how their body is i.e. penis/male, vagina/female, everything else only exists because of how society has evolved, and can quite easily change it's definition, or disappear entirely. The only thing that doesn't change is the body, so any other labels are unnecessary.


Well, besides culture, like I just went over. Furthermore, humans are a social species and social constructs are important to us. We've made structures of culture and ethnicity and even gender to achieve that need of being with each other. Even penis = male, vagina = female is a social construct.

http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
Quote:
 
Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions — known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) — often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD2.

When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.


While gender is a concept of society, it is one we need. Even if someone identifies as genderless, they'd still be defining themselves in terms of gender - having none. We thrive on cultural identity, which gender is a part of. It brings a togetherness that humans both desire and need, and to say that it doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't matter, discredits the fields of psychology and sociology as well as all of anthropology (as linked before from the other topic, here is a list of other 'non-gender' identities from around the world, both from the past to the present. (http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Gender-variant_identities_worldwide ).

Third gender and agender concepts have literally always existed. They're not a new thing and they're not a fad. A fad is short lived enthusiasm for something. As shown, third gender and agender concepts have been around forever and will continue to be around.

Quote:
 
Because if we were all to categorise things in order to fit us personally, we would have 7 billion different categories for everyone to fall in. Personality is such a unique and complex thing that it seems silly to try and categorise it. But a body is quite simple to categorise. I don't see why people can't just accept that pronouns like 'he' or 'she' do not in anyway refer to your personality, nor is it trying to accurately sum up who you are as a person, it's just a mechanic of language to refer to somebody using the quickest identifier short of just saying 'human'.


As quoted above, a body is not easy to categorize at all, especially in relation to sex and what you can see. Also, in terms of pronouns, it's really not that hard to use them once someone tells you what theirs are. I actually tend to use gender-neutral terms, such as they/them, until I know otherwise what a person prefers. People are allowed to have preferences in what they're referred to as and going against that, especially willfully, can be frustrating for them and seen as disrespectful.



Quote:
 
But it is a new thing. "Agender" or "non-binary" as we know it today is not the same as Calalai and Calabai in Indonesia. I'll quote the explanations again for anyone interested:


From your wiki source
Quote:
 
Agender is a term which can be literally translated as 'without gender'. It can be seen either as a non-binary gender identity or as a statement of not having a gender identity.


So a non-binary gender identity such as calalai or calabai?

Quote:
 
Calalai are anatomical females who take on many of the roles and functions expected of men. [...] While Rani works with men, dresses as a man, smokes cigarettes, and walks alone at night, which are all things women are not encouraged to do, Rani is female and therefore not considered a man. Nor does Rani wish to become a man. Rani is calalai. Rani's female anatomy, combined with hir occupation, behaviour, and sexuality, allows Rani to identify, and be identified, as a calalai.


and

Quote:
 
"Calabai, conversely, are anatomical males who, in many respects, adhere to the expectations of women. However, calabai do not consider themselves women, are not considered women."


In both cases, they're saying that while they were born anatomically one way, and though the act the way the other binary does, they are not either. They are not 'male' or 'female' binary genders. They are, respectively, calalai and calabai. Again, lacking a binary gender, neither male or female. Agender in repsect to the binary genders, non-binary. Same thing. Not new. Not a fad.

Quote:
 
Notice that the Calalai and Calabai are described as "male" or "female" with characteristics representative of the opposite gender.


Notice that it actually says they were born with certain anatomical parts and, yes, act the way you would expect a binary 'male' or 'female' to act, but they don't actually identify or want to be considered a binary male or female.

Quote:
 
They reject both genders because they reject social stereotypes. Agender has nothing to do with biology--rather, it is a fruitless rejection of social constructs.


It's its own social construct. It's neither binary male or female, but its own.
Posted Image


Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


I think that your argument is good, Seruphim, so there's not much that I can debate against. It's hard to find an argument when it mostly boils down to "I simply don't agree." But I'll try to get at what I'm going for with this quote:

Quote:
 
In both cases, they're saying that while they were born anatomically one way, and though the act the way the other binary does, they are not either. They are not 'male' or 'female' binary genders. They are, respectively, calalai and calabai. Again, lacking a binary gender, neither male or female. Agender in repsect to the binary genders, non-binary. Same thing. Not new. Not a fad.

I bolded your claim that "they are not either" because this is where we seem to disagree. You believe that an agendered person does not identify with either gender, yet it states clearly in the passages I quoted that the calalai and calabai do indeed identify, biologically, as their birth sex. What they are denying are socially constructed things called "genders." For example, a female could be perfectly comfortable with her body, her vagina, and the fact that she is physically a female, but yet she rejects the social construct of "female," which is problematic because what is considered "female" is wholly shaped by the society that she lives in.

What Mitas and I are trying to argue here is that gender is socially constructed, varies greatly depending upon the area that you live in, the religions that your people follow, etc. and should not be held to such a high standard. A person who is agender places too much stock in things that are socially constructed instead of just rejecting that all together and being their own person. They feel the need to attach a label to themselves because they are not comfortable being a female interested in male things. They need to announce this to the world so that they can feel accepted. This is not necessary and is, in a way, a bit egotistical. A "pay attention to me, I'm special" sort of mentality. Maybe they feel victimized by our gendered society? I, too, have a problem with the way that our society is structured, but I feel no need to attach mindless labels to myself. Like I was saying earlier, I could also be considered agender, but why should I? I'm comfortable with my body. I'm comfortable being a female. I just happen to have no feminine interests. That's just who I am as a person, not my "gender." Gender doesn't exist. It's something we created.

Again, I have no problem with this really. It doesn't affect me. I couldn't care less what Tim, Bob, or Mary choose to identify as, and I will respect their pronouns so long as they respect me; however, I can still have a problem with the idea from a logical perspective. I see it as a fad because I see it as trending. If someone else felt the same way that I did and saw other people suddenly calling themselves agender, they may also think it a fitting label and adopt it. It catches on like wildfire. All of these gender/sexuality things do. 20 years ago, you weren't pansexual. You were just bisexual. Pansexual is another trendy, pretty much useless label that people have recently begun adopting in troves. It is essentially the same as bisexual, but with the added announcement to the world that you're open to dating transgender people. Completely unnecessary IMO. Just be with who you love. No one cares.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Seruphim
Member Avatar
Cell's Angel

I don't think I have the strength to address each point here. However, we're all in agreement that gender is a social construct. That's not really what's in debate. and if my above argument didn't convince you of anything I feel like I'm wasting my time.

On the last part, I will only say that language is a developing tool and we constantly create new terms to use and identify ourselves with as we learn about ourselves and the world around us and how we relate to it. again, humans are social creatures and we thrive in the social constructs we create. that's why we create them and identify ourselves with culture, gender pronouns of all kinds, ethnicity, etc. Just because one word didn't exist in the past doesn't mean the concept itself is new. Just because something has one term doesn't mean it's an entirely separate concept from something else.
Posted Image


Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


Something Mitas quoted
 
Race isn't real, technically, we're all humans, just from different parts of the world and raised in different cultures.
If race were a social construct, then why is it that forensic anthropologists can identify with almost unfailing accuracy the race of a pile of bones? And sex, for that matter. There are real, objectively identifiable differences between certain categories, and it's not a simple difference of "more or less pigment, yo".

If you're to say that the distinction between males and females is a social construct, you ought to say that the difference between a cat and a tree is, too. We've noted in all the same way that they're not the same, only the differences are larger and more numerous. The differences aren't that huge, but whether you choose to categorise them as such for conveniences or not, men and women are unquestionably, unequivocally different in distinctive, practically noteworthy ways, and it has rightfully—naturally—been noted.

The terms and language are social tools, but the actual differences are there whether an intelligence were around to note them or not.

Quote:
 
So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.
So, one's own perception of self is what informs their biological sex? I guess it determines what species they are, too. It also means that if they feel themselves to be intelligent, they're therefore intelligent.

Vilain should just stick to identifying the findings, and stay well away from interpreting them. The use of language in that article overall feels like it was intended to push an agenda on the premise of something that otherwise might have been vaguely interesting to know. There were references to societal attitudes and how they ought to be, which was completely unnecessary. They're messing around with the genetics of mice, and suddenly that means sex is still, always—and with implication of naturally—factually being determined post-natally? No... they're causing changes post-natally by switching on and off certain genes...

People falling outside of the ovals, or being somewhere between them, are not the norm, and the presence of such individuals do not render the individual ovals non-existent - it just indicates the presence of other groups or anomalies. And just because breaking something down to a genetic level points out their striking similarity at that level, doesn't mean the difference between its manifestations is arbitrary or essentially made-up, either.

Seruphim
 
Even penis = male, vagina = female is a social construct.
No, that's pretty much the gist of it. Barring anomalies, where something doesn't work as intended or is misaligned—which even that article you posted noted—something with a penis is stupid biologically male, and something with a vagina is annoying biologically female. Then there are exceptions.

Quote:
 
Also, in terms of pronouns, it's really not that hard to use them once someone tells you what theirs are. I actually tend to use gender-neutral terms, such as they/them, until I know otherwise what a person prefers. People are allowed to have preferences in what they're referred to as and going against that, especially willfully, can be frustrating for them and seen as disrespectful.
No, it's not that hard, but nor is it necessary or anything anyone has an obligation to do.

It might be frustrating and upsetting to me that you don't (yet) refer to me as Saint Lazuli, but it doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to refer to me in such a way, easy as it may or may not be to do so. It might also be seen as disrespectful to insist upon special forms of address.

Quote:
 
I will only say that language is a developing tool and we constantly create new terms to use and identify ourselves with as we learn about ourselves and the world around us and how we relate to it.
Looks like a plea masquerading as an argument to me. That language can develop and change when necessary doesn't mean people have to accept or adopt proposed changes, nor does it explain why they should.

If they're necessary or useful, they'll survive criticism and stick, and maybe even if they're not. They're still inherently egotistical and unnecessary.
Edited by Sandy Shore, Jan 13 2017, 06:51 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

Quote:
 
When I said it, I meant in relation to the fact that we are all of the human species. Biologically, we are not ducks or aliens or w/e. However, we most certainly have different cultures, which are social constructs, and those do define and impact our identities and personalities. That is beyond skin color and what you can 'look at'.

I did not deny the existence of cultures, nor their impact on personalities and identities. I said they didn't need to have an impact, especially in the case of gender and race. If you're one gender who doesn't feel like they fit in with the culture and stereotyping of another, that does not make you mentally the other gender, it just makes you you in whatever body you are in (providing you are happy with that body). The idea of what a 'man' or a 'woman' is, outside of the body, is merely conceptual and is ever-changing. In 100 years, some of these stereotypes will have changed enough that some people's reasons for not identifying with their idea of what a 'man' or a 'woman' is, will have changed, so would that make them agender still? This is where we seem to be at odds though, both you and me, and me and everyone who is pro-non-binary labeling.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I feel that outside of labeling somebody by how their body is i.e. penis/male, vagina/female, everything else only exists because of how society has evolved, and can quite easily change it's definition, or disappear entirely. The only thing that doesn't change is the body, so any other labels are unnecessary.

Well, besides culture, like I just went over. Furthermore, humans are a social species and social constructs are important to us. We've made structures of culture and ethnicity and even gender to achieve that need of being with each other. Even penis = male, vagina = female is a social construct.

So culture doesn't change, or disappear entirely? Tell that to human history. Also, in that quote, I'm specifically talking about identifying 'males' and 'females', obviously there are other ways to identify bodies e.g. skin colour, height, weight, but as with sex/gender, none of them have a biologically set impact on the person's identity or personality.

Also, penis=male, vagina=female is very much not a social construct, I don't know what you're getting at there. Unless it's the terminology, in which case sure, penis could = funstopl and vagina could = omvender, but there's still a recognisable difference that needs labelling.

Quote:
 
While gender is a concept of society, it is one we need. Even if someone identifies as genderless, they'd still be defining themselves in terms of gender - having none. We thrive on cultural identity, which gender is a part of. It brings a togetherness that humans both desire and need, and to say that it doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't matter, discredits the fields of psychology and sociology as well as all of anthropology.

I don't see how in the modern day society we need gender as a concept, outside of classifying bodies for medical and identification reasons. Even with homosexuality becoming more accepted, coupled with adoption, male/female relationships and parent dynamics aren't even necessary anymore i.e. relationships can have two husbands or two wives, kids can have two dads or two mums.

Also, I disagree that gender needs to play any part in the togetherness of humans. Togetherness is about the mixing of personalities, hobbies, interests, humour etc, none of that needs to be impacted by gender.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


Quote:
 
While gender is a concept of society, it is one we need. Even if someone identifies as genderless, they'd still be defining themselves in terms of gender - having none. We thrive on cultural identity, which gender is a part of. It brings a togetherness that humans both desire and need, and to say that it doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't matter, discredits the fields of psychology and sociology as well as all of anthropology.

To further add to this, gender is only necessary in making everyone comfortable. "Gender is a social construct, sex is biological" was a theory proposed by sexologist John Money in 1955 and is used mostly by the feminist movement in an effort to deviate from the negative stigma surrounding trans-identity and trans-culture. Gender in and of itself is only useful in making those whose "mental" sex does not align with their physical sex feel more comfortable in a society in which penis = male, vagina = female. That's it. This does help the trans community to feel more comfortable, but it also adds to the problems we already had in terms of stereotyping, separating people based on their hobbies, interests, and dress code, etc. Why can't we just be physically male or physically female and like whatever the hell we like without lopping labels on top of that? Arguing that we are all simply human is much more logical than arguing that some of us are mentally male, mentally female, or agender. It's even more isolating.

What else is gender useful for aside from alienating people, creating a false dichotomy between male and female, and strengthening gendered stereotypes?

Gender does not serve to bring togetherness, and I'm not sure where you got this considering I've observed the exact opposite. Claiming that gender doesn't exist wouldn't discredit any of the fields you mentioned because gender "physically" does not exist. We were never claiming that it doesn't exist as a social construct, however, which is exactly what psychologists and sexologists argue. Gender doesn't have anything to do with anthropology though, so I'm not sure where you go that. They classify things in terms of sex.
Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Jan 13 2017, 02:32 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Seruphim
Member Avatar
Cell's Angel

For the sake of my own sanity, I just wanted to let yall know I'm not continuing the discussion because I feel it's fruitless and would involve beating my head against a wall repeatedly. I just don't see this going anywhere besides a headache. Anyone else is welcome to pick it up if they want, of course
Posted Image


Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doggo Champion 2k17
Default Avatar


I'm always open to changing my mind. I just haven't seen anything worth changing it over. Plus my position was pretty neutral to begin with--just a state of not really caring what people do.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chief Inspector
Member Avatar


My rule of thumb is to refer to someone by how they look (be it male or female) because 99.9% of the time it's correct.
Edited by Chief Inspector, Jan 21 2017, 11:06 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Designed by McKee91