Where's the "it's complicated" option?
Last edited:
-
AFLW 2025 - AFLW Trade and Draft - All the player moves
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Society/Culture Do you belive in Non Binary as a gender?
- Thread starter foxdog50
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
sherb
Hall of Famer
I have a non-binary neighbour.
Great person.
Great person.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
. Much appreciated
- Banned
- #32
Can't remember. Dan Carlin I think
- Aug 21, 2016
- 19,150
- 32,821
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
I don't think we are disagreeing but you missed my point. Just because there have been and continue to be societies that recognise different genders doesn't mean the whole concept of biological male/female sex differences can be dismissed. I would put rare intersex conditions in the same category.
To be clear, the bolded is not my argument. It's one that has been made by certain queer theorists and promoted by activists in the shift of focus from sex to gender. It's part of a larger postmodernist rejection of Enlightenment values, science, reason and objective reality - because they are all seen as the basis of systems of oppression.
Judith Butler is one of the most influential theorists in this area. In Gender Trouble, she writes
If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called "sex" is as culturally constructed as gender.
This view is at odds with second wave feminists who view biological sex as a fundamental reality so that women can attain material, social and political equality. Hence the battles between trans activists and 'TERFS'. You might think this is fringe stuff or a bitch fight between two groups you are not involved with. But the Judith Butler view of the world has become fairly mainstream in 'People and Culture' departments and hence government and corporate internal policy.
I did some searches on TERF
honestly of these progressive groups don’t understand each other, why the brow beating of ‘binary identifying’ groups for not understanding ‘what it’s like to be xxxx’
another thought, suppose we do have quotas for promotion in our organisations, whts going to be the vibe if males simply go trans to get better promotion?
We already see sports people faking disability to play in the olympics etc
honestly of these progressive groups don’t understand each other, why the brow beating of ‘binary identifying’ groups for not understanding ‘what it’s like to be xxxx’
another thought, suppose we do have quotas for promotion in our organisations, whts going to be the vibe if males simply go trans to get better promotion?
We already see sports people faking disability to play in the olympics etc
the problem as i see it is that the terms conflate, even as much as gender/sex might confuse some people. i don't think there's anyone at all who isn't guilty of messing it up in some way. all this tells me is that there's a lot to play out and the rules of engagement as individuals are still being written. lots of terms come with preconceptions.
darcy is female, correct? or woman, or another term. that's darcy's biological sex, right? but calling darcy female is incorrect as darcy identifies as non-binary, despite female being used as a term to describe biological sex, not gender. it's not mis-gendering, it's referring to biological sex. this is all clear as mud.
is it incorrect to say darcy is a non-binary female? i'm catering to both darcy's gender and biological sex in that statement. but the term female (or some other term relating to darcy's biological sex), despite being agreed on as an absolute truth, is not to be mentioned.
as an end note, i'd like to mention that i go back and edit posts where i've used incorrect terms to refer to darcy. i don't care that darcy is non-binary. my interest in any discussion is the rules of any language use, and how rocky the ground is even for those fully on board with darcy. i think they too, conflate language and gender/sex.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #36
I would say that if you specifically needed to refer to biology you would, for Darcy and those like them, say "biological female". This seems pretty straightforward. If you're in that position, just check. When will you be in that position though?
If you used that to just facetiously get around calling a non-binary person "they", then I would say they'd be perfectly within their rights to tell you to **** off.
Great post!
That pretty much sums it up, I wish the op would have a bit more flexibility in thinking like you do.
Like full contact competition sport like footy, in the case of Darcy yep she'd have be biologically classified as a female to play (or should be).
Probably not, but that might be offensive to Darcy, in fact probably is. So no problem addressing Darcy how Darcy wishes, which is I don't know.
Probably best to address as Darcy.
Oops, apologies didn't mean to address as 'she'd', no offence intended.
I did apologize for that slip Chief, there was no offence intended. Innocent mistake.
Still for some people I should be punished / labelled / called out for that, now that I view as vengeful with a chip on the shoulder that have an agenda.
And you shouldn't be hounded for that, unless that was your intent to miss. That's an issue in itself, being labelled / called out for unintended mistakes is not cool.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Well the "yacarnevensayanythinthesedays" do have a point, willing to bet there's some out there just itchin to pull you down because of your innocent unintended mistake because they're blinded by their agenda. Wait and see, I hope not but it's not a definite 'won't' is it.
That sh*t is just not on and is just as offensive as w**kers who intend offence to people like Darcy, cnuts like that I'd meet in the street, then I'd give em something to be offended about.
But you did post claiming 'waiting for the sjw's to call me out' (paraphrase) or words to that effect, and now you're back pedaling 'they won't' like sjw's don't exist.
Reality check, there are some fkhead sjw's out there that are blinded by agenda that are willing to find offence and use it as a weapon, your 'miss' and my 'she'd' a case in point.
You can't just dismiss it as 'won't happen', might not, but to suggest 'won't' with conviction is naive and ignorant.
- Aug 21, 2016
- 19,150
- 32,821
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
It's not just that they don't understand each other. The trans activists seek to de-platform anyone who disagree with them, including feminists who argue that biological sex is a real thing that has been the basis of historical discrimination.
The term TERF is really a slur. The R stands for radical. Who are the real radicals in this argument?
In the grand scheme of things it's all recent and relative. We are talking about ideas that have existed for either a few thousand years, 40 years or 15 years.
Similar threads
