Society/Culture Do you belive in Non Binary as a gender?

[Lethality]

You're not stupid enough to think that the comp is split between male and female due to gender identity (as opposed to because of biological sex) do you?

It literally is, up to a point biological males can play in the AFLW. I think they have some objective hormone measures now, after the Hannah Mouncey case.

Also isn't gender identity important to trans or even CIS people? If Darcy is non binary then maybe the name of the league shouldn't be AFLW because that would be misgendering her?

 

[Lethality]

There's probably females in the AFLW who identify as men, that's when it becomes real complicated. You can't call it AFLF either because the excludes males who identify as women.

The leagues probably need to be separated by testosterone or whatever the appropriate markers are.

Or you could just have one league and females and women naturally don't make the cut. Personally I don't see a problem with this, pro sports are not that important and I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that certain humans have a distinct biological advantage or disadvantage.

So maybe girls won't be able to play in the AFL, but that's ok, because most people can't. As long as they're not excluded or told they can't play due to their gender, it's fine. This is the most elegant solution imo

 

[Pessimistic]

There's probably females in the AFLW who identify as men, that's when it becomes real complicated. You can't call it AFLF either because the excludes males who identify as women.

The leagues probably need to be separated by testosterone or whatever the appropriate markers are.

Or you could just have one league and females and women naturally don't make the cut. Personally I don't see a problem with this, pro sports are not that important and I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that certain humans have a distinct biological advantage or disadvantage.

So maybe girls won't be able to play in the AFL, but that's ok, because most people can't. As long as they're not excluded or told they can't play due to their gender, it's fine. This is the most elegant solution imo

It’s also a development league with evolving traditions. It could probably accommodate a measure of non binary, but the trickle cannot become a flood, or it loses its point
Suppose it really does take off and becomes professionally lucrative?

 

[Malifice]

It literally is, up to a point biological males can play in the AFLW. I think they have some objective hormone measures now, after the Hannah Mouncey case.

Also isn't gender identity important to trans or even CIS people? If Darcy is non binary then maybe the name of the league shouldn't be AFLW because that would be misgendering her?

In a perfect world we'd have a separate non binary comp but that's not really feasible is it?

We need a balancing act between inclusivity and practicality.

 

[Lethality]

In a perfect world we'd have a separate non binary comp but that's not really feasible is it?

Maybe it would be feasible if more women come out as non binary or even identifying as men. There is a high percentage of homosexuals in the AFLW and that usually correlates with more masculine traits or not identifying necessarily as women.
But that wouldn't necessarily be a non binary league, maybe like a female non-CIS league.

 

[CM86]

Maybe it would be feasible if more women come out as non binary or even identifying as men. There is a high percentage of homosexuals in the AFLW and that usually correlates with more masculine traits or not identifying necessarily as women.
But that wouldn't necessarily be a non binary league, maybe like a female non-CIS league.

Framed discussion.


Maybe we should tackle the binary/non-binary discussion and understanding, before we try to find all the answers to footy leagues in Australia.

It's impossible to understand binary/non-binary et al, if it's looked at through a prism of current-day AFLW.

 

[Malifice]

Yep, end thread.

Don't know why this is even a thread, just stupid.

Move on everyone.

Anecdotal, but conservatives always seem to have a hard time coming to grip with the distinction between social constructs and independent reality.

They also place a lot of value in social constructs like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, culture, economics, wealth, power and nations.

They'll even flat out deny that most of the things I just listed even are social constructs, or have great difficulty in seeing that as such (even though they clearly are).

It's not a phenomenon I see with the other side of the political spectrum, and I am at a loss to explain it.

 

[Malifice]

Maybe it would be feasible if more women come out as non binary or even identifying as men.

It's just not practical, and even if we had the number of non binary athletes enough to form a different league, you're still left with competitive advantages based on biological sex (i.e. the XY Chromosome individuals would likely dominate, notwithstanding their actual gender or gender identity, to the marked disadvantage of the XX Chromosome athletes).

There would be all sorts of crazy rules in place. And you would probably wind up needing an impractical number of different leagues to cover every possible combination of non binary/ non cisgender athletes.

The current policy is that at the elite level, a trans gendered or non binary athlete has to get permission to play in the league (so as not to ensure a competitive advantage in the womens comp, or a risk of harm in the mens) and must meet a number of physical criteria first, and be ticked off to play.

It's possible that we could have a fully trans man or woman playing in those leagues one day. The most likely candidate would be someone who started hormone replacement and gender reassignment before puberty so as to ensure no competitive advantge or disdvantage in those comps.

At grassroots its a lot more flexible. Gender identity is all you need.

For mine, that strikes pretty good balance between inclusivity, practicality and competition integrity.

 

[Scotland]

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.

100%.

Captain Wikipedia (and others) seem to think that someone can 'be a woman, but not a biological woman' and also 'be a biological woman, but not a woman' and that just calling gender a social construct is a compelling argument that clears everything up.

Biological sex is real regardless of how many new words people invent ('XY chromosome individual', really?). If you are writing a paper on sexual reproductive systems for example then the language used needs to clearly distinguish between the male and female aspects of that. And if you are writing a paper on sex assignment or intersexuality or similar the language needs to be very specific. Gender theorists throw any old words down on a page and then yell at anyone who doesn't accept their premise.

I think there's a quite a few people who want to maintain ambiguity of language because it serves their purpose of fluffy arguments. As soon as you draw a line in the sand people lose their minds. Tell people that AFLW is for females, they will flip out as though it somehow excludes non-binary people from playing. Tell them it's for anyone who identifies as a woman, they'll flip out at the prospect of next year's draft having 50 men in it. The people at AFL House only really care about the optics. They want to balance looking inclusive with not wanting to scare off girls from playing a sport in its relative infancy.

World Rugby have guidelines that many would consider exclusionary as they have effectively turned international women's rugby into a sport for females born as such. Decent article on them here (https://theconversation.com/why-the...es-from-the-womens-game-are-reasonable-152178). I would say they are pretty gender neutral. They don't recommend post pubescent males competing against females regardless of surgery, hormone treatment etc. that has occurred after that point. Any player that meets that criteria is still free to identify as whatever they like. And any player who doesn't meet the criteria doesn't stop being a person with their own identity. Combat sports are split into men and women (again now needing clarification for the latter) and then split again into weight classes, this stuff isn't new.

 

[Seeds]

After Darcy Vescio coming out as she is Non Binary, just putting the question out there, do you believe in people being Non Binary
Yes , you can be not a male or a female

No, your either a Man or a Women

Biologically their are people born with mixed anatomy. So the answer is obvious.

 

[nut]

So you want to play in a competition for women that get paid more than a competition for men, that have the same talents?
I don’t care how you define your self …
But There must be a determination on which competition you qualify … and it should be biological sex.

 

[Lethality]

It's just not practical, and even if we had the number of non binary athletes enough to form a different league, you're still left with competitive advantages based on biological sex (i.e. the XY Chromosome individuals would likely dominate, notwithstanding their actual gender or gender identity, to the marked disadvantage of the XX Chromosome athletes).

Not necessarily, if you consider that the AFL is already effectively a non binary league for XY footballers. It can be rebranded as such in case it's not clear, to be more inclusive of non binary or other genders and even XX who may qualify in the future.

This allows one gendered league by design in AFLW for XX and XY on restricted hormones, and a XX non binary league for those who don't want to play in a women's league since they don't identify as such.

I think there would be enough XX non binaries to form such a league.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Who cares!

 

[Poetic Justice]

I think people can decide what they want, to be frank.

I've been watching 'Billions' lately and see they made a concerted effort with the non-binary character in it.

The trouble I have with this and it is either trivial and/or childish is the use of the 'they/them' pronoun. From a grammatical perspective, it stumps me everytime it is used because you tend to think the conversation is being had about a group of people and not just a single person.

I suppose to try and overcome this would probably be trying to pigeonhole no different to man/woman though either, so it's probably not even worth mentioning really.

I'll see myself out.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Right.............. sarcasm, so you really do believe sjw's don't exist....... Ok, carry on.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Anecdotal, but conservatives always seem to have a hard time coming to grip with the distinction between social constructs and independent reality.

They also place a lot of value in social constructs like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, culture, economics, wealth, power and nations.

They'll even flat out deny that most of the things I just listed even are social constructs, or have great difficulty in seeing that as such (even though they clearly are).

It's not a phenomenon I see with the other side of the political spectrum, and I am at a loss to explain it.

Agreed it's annoying the yelling at clouds over nothing.

Just to note my point of view

I am conservative about many a thing only if they're practical

I am also supportive of progressive ideals only if they're not impractical

I have no qualms with Darcy claiming non binary status or how Darcy would like be addressed, I do however have an issue with the OP being deliberately obtuse. Very offensive.

I also have qualms with sjw's using non intended mistakes (see my discussion with Chief ) as a card / weapon because sjw's have an agenda. That is very very offensive in my book

I can explain your phenomenon, bare boned conservatism doesn't view socially constructed genders as a necessity (among other things) or a practical ideal, and the cloud yelling comes from the disingenuous use as a card / label from sjw's of that view - very offensive.

There in lies your answer.

Most will claim I'm a bit of fence sitter, so what? and they can GAGF as far as I'm concerned. As for you Mal I don't think you're as 'left' as you might think you are. You display sentimism that is far too practical for a hard lefty and therefore I don't think you're on a 'side'

 

[Carringbush2010]

In a perfect world we'd have a separate non binary comp but that's not really feasible is it?

We need a balancing act between inclusivity and practicality.

This^.

This is an ideal worth pursuing, not just on this topic in all the 'thorny' issues.

 

[Scotland]

This^.

This is an ideal worth pursuing, not just on this topic in all the 'thorny' issues.

You can 'believe' in non-binary as a gender without accepting everything that goes along with that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can 'believe' in non-binary as a gender without accepting everything that goes along with that.

I never suggested as such.

 

[eastfreo75]

You need to be clearer here.

Gender is different to biological sex. The former is socially constructed, and subjective. The latter is an objective biological reality.

You can assume, and be accepted as a different gender to your biological sex, or even assume and be accepted as no gender at all. There are literally tens of millions of people in the world who are (and do) just that, plus several entire cultures (South American, Thailand, PnG etc) that have multiple gender roles that exist within them other than just 'male' and 'female'.

So the answer to can you have a non binary identity in the 'gender' category is clearly 'Yes'.

As for biological sex, that's largely fixed at birth (or more truthfully, at conception). You can get surgery to more closely resemble your gender identity, but it doesn't change the biological reality in the slightest.

That said, there are biologically speaking, more than just the two sexes. There exist a sizeable number of biologically intersex people who display (for example) male and female physical traits. So again, even from a strictly biological position (leaving identity to one side) the answer is also 'Yes' if you want to just narrow the question down to biology.

If gender is a social construct, then Non binary is a social construct. Therefore, gender doesn’t exist.

 

[CM86]

If gender is a social construct, then Non binary is a social construct.

Yes.

Therefore, gender doesn’t exist.

Social constructs exist.
They've been constructed.

 

[eastfreo75]

Yes.


Social constructs exist.
They've been constructed.

Constructed by who and why?

Society never constructed 72 plus genders, that’s made up in Humanity departments at Universities.

The 72 plus gender isn’t useful or helpful assisting individuals through complex issues.

I never understand identifying as anything as useful.

The more we see others as special individuals the better.

 

[CM86]

Constructed by who and why?

Apparently it's humanity departments at Universities.

Society never constructed 72 plus genders, that’s made up in Humanity departments at Universities.

Even if that were actually true... that's part of our society.

I never understand identifying as anything as useful.

You say that..
But you don't mean it.

That's a glib talking point that's thrown around a lot, but isn't true.

The more we see others as special individuals the better.

Sure, wouldn't it be amazing to live in a world where no one is judged on aspects of their life that have no negative impact on others.

But it isn't reality.
In fact, even in this thread... non-binary people are being identified and judged as a collective.
There's even multiple threads across BF talking about this individual in particular. And applying their condition to an identified group, and then applying problems that may arise from that identified group being part of other identified groups.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Constructed by who and why?

Society never constructed 72 plus genders, that’s made up in Humanity departments at Universities.

The 72 plus gender isn’t useful or helpful assisting individuals through complex issues.

I never understand identifying as anything as useful.

The more we see others as special individuals the better.

Then what is the problem with someone identifying as how they wish? If someone identifies as a cat, a piece of lego or another gender than what they are biologically how does it effect you or anyone else for that matter?

 

[Chief]

This all reminds me of back when women wanted a title that wouldn't label them as married or unmarried.

Every oldie was freaking out like it was the end of the world. Feminism was gonna destroy society!