| 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: |
| Non-binary gender | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 12 2017, 08:43 PM (853 Views) | |
| * Mitas | Jan 12 2017, 08:43 PM Post #1 |
![]()
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).
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.
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'. |
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 12 2017, 08:51 PM Post #2 |
![]()
|
I guess I should probably start by responding, too.
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:
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Seruphim | Jan 13 2017, 01:06 AM Post #3 |
|
Cell's Angel
![]()
|
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'.
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
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.
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.
From your wiki source
So a non-binary gender identity such as calalai or calabai?
and
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.
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.
It's its own social construct. It's neither binary male or female, but its own. |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 13 2017, 01:19 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
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:
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. |
![]() |
|
| Seruphim | Jan 13 2017, 03:53 AM Post #5 |
|
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. |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| + Sandy Shore | Jan 13 2017, 06:51 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
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. 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. 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 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. 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.
|
![]() |
|
| * Mitas | Jan 13 2017, 10:17 AM Post #7 |
![]()
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
![]()
|
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.
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.
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. |
|
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 13 2017, 02:28 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Seruphim | Jan 13 2017, 06:29 PM Post #9 |
|
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 |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 13 2017, 08:10 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
|
|
Jan 21 2017, 11:05 AM Post #11 |
![]() ![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:40 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy















4:40 PM Jul 13