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

[maelcoluim]

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

In most cases your clearly born a particular gender. In some cases it is unclear.

Doesn't bother me if someone chooses to identify with another gender, but I think society imposes heavy stereotypes on what they expect of each gender and so it leads to some people not being able to feel comfortable in their own skin.

 

[Roobs321]

You are straying your argument into domains where the debate between liberal/economic feminists and trans activists hasn't even started. It's only relevant to the West. If you want to expand basic 2nd wave feminism of women's rights to the third world or Islamic nations then I'm onboard with you.

But in Australia, USA, UK etc it's conspiracy theory to suggest a current patriarchy still exists that regards women as inferior to men, deny them property rights, deny them the ability to work, deny the ability to vote, control their reproductive rights. These are long established material gains.

As I said, the current debate is within feminism and is about identity politics. So, for example, there are quotas that preference women as regards employment and political representation. Should biological males identifying as females qualify as the same oppressed group as biological females entitled to these advantages?

Some feminists believe that anyone assigned male at birth will continue to have some form of male privilege, even after a gender transition. The trans activists seek to silence people with those views.

It is such a fringe debate within feminism and trans issues that it hardly bears repeating. Trans Exclusionary RADICAL feminists and the RADICAL trans activists should indicate how far from the main of feminism and trans issues those views are. Neither pose any real credible threat of significance to one another. They are both just agents of right wing clickbait.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It is such a fringe debate within feminism and trans issues that it hardly bears repeating. Trans Exclusionary RADICAL feminists and the RADICAL trans activists should indicate how far from the main of feminism and trans issues those views are. Neither pose any real credible threat of significance to one another.

Who is the arbiter of what is fringe and what is mainstream?

I don't think think one group labelling another as 'radical' helps the debate. But if such a tag contributes to deplatforming their opponents then it does pose a real credible threat of significance.

 

[Seeds]

It is such a fringe debate within feminism and trans issues that it hardly bears repeating. Trans Exclusionary RADICAL feminists and the RADICAL trans activists should indicate how far from the main of feminism and trans issues those views are. Neither pose any real credible threat of significance to one another. They are both just agents of right wing clickbait.

ideas that become mainstream all come from ideas that were once considered fringe debate.

 

[Seeds]

If I tell you to 'Be a man,' am I telling you to:

1) Physically grow a penis.
or
2) Act a certain way, according to socially constructed expectations?

The answer is obvious surely?

Still waiting for you to define what female and male behaviours/acts are?

you have based your entire definition of gender around it. but cant explain what any of those acts and behaviours are that define the genders?

is it quite possible that you are wrong and gender isnt about behaviours and in fact has no definition at all? I.e. gender does not exist as distinct from sex. If it does surely a definition would not be all that hard to come up with?


And going back to simply saying its a social construct is not a defintion. Money is a social construct that exists. But saying money is a social construct is not moneys definition. Money has an objective definition. Human rights is also social construct With its own defintion. we need to be able to distinguish gender from other social constructs like money And human rights for it to actually exist.


right now gender as a distinct thing from sex looks like the emperors new clothes.

 

[Gethelred]

Still waiting for you to define what female and male behaviours/acts are?

you have based your entire definition of gender around it. but cant explain what any of those acts and behaviours are that define the genders?

is it quite possible that you are wrong and gender isnt about behaviours and in fact has no definition at all? I.e. gender does not exist as distinct from sex. If it does surely a definition would not be all that hard to come up with?


And going back to simply saying its a social construct is not a defintion. Money is a social construct that exists. But saying money is a social construct is not moneys definition. Money has an objective definition. Human rights is also social construct With its own defintion. we need to be able to distinguish gender from other social constructs like money And human rights for it to actually exist.


right now gender as a distinct thing from sex looks like the emperors new clothes.

This from the OP of this thread:

Society/Culture - What makes a man a man?

What makes a man? Not physical man but cultural man. Its hard to describe but it feels like it does exist. So why dont we list the attributes or behaviours that make us feel more manly. Here are some of mine: - taking a punch and getting up. - realising I prefer a smoky whisky over...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Spirit Level]

No

 

[Gethelred]

For the sake of this post, let's put intersex aside and just have a situation where everyone is born either male or female.

With the social construction of stereotypes based on each sex, a non-binary person doesn't want to switch their gender, they just want to be seen and referred to as neutral, where they float between the stereotypes without judgment, is that right?

I understand the suggestion of two genders, which includes those that are transgender, but if you identify as non-binary in society do you just use your biological sex when in a situation that needs to stipulate the difference between the two genders?

I feel it is almost going backwards, that we have set stereotypes for each sex and if you don't feel fully the part then you need to change your gender. I always thought it was normal for men to connect with their feminine side, and vice-versa, but don't really see the need to not be a man. It feels like it's acknowledging the old stereotypes that I thought we were moving away from to be honest.

Is the difficulty you flag in your post due to a collective approach as opposed to an individualist one? Instead of looking at groups, look at the individual. That individual has behaviours which conform to pre-existing gender steriotypes, and that person has a gendered identity.

Does their behaviour affect their identity, or do they choose their identity and make the behaviours they do gendered?

I think the issue we're discussing isn't really a non-binary one, but the very spectrum of identities that exist within the two genders of male and female. You can be a woman who enjoys rock climbing, AFL, cricket, MMA, beer, farting, etc; what you are doing by having these behaviours isn't becoming non-binary, but redefining what it is to be a woman.

In short, I think by focussing on behaviour, you're complicating what is meant by identity into something it isn't. Behaviours can be gendered, but that does not mean they all are or that they cannot be done by other genders.

Behaviour shapes identity, but doesn't dictate it.

 

[Fadge]

I sense the above two posts are in violent agreement with one another.

Though it does beg the question... What dictates gender if not biology or behaviour?

 

[Scotland]

I sense the above two posts are in violent agreement with one another.

Though it does beg the question... What dictates gender if not biology or behaviour?

Malifice.

 

[Seeds]

maybe chief can explain what social behaviours are female and male if malfice has gone missing?

 

[Chief]

maybe chief can explain what social behaviours are female and male if malfice has gone missing?

This sort of thing has been explained so many times. There are everything from magazine articles to blog posts to Tik Tok videos on it.

I'm not feeding sea lions no mo'.

 

[Seeds]

This from the OP of this thread:

Society/Culture - What makes a man a man?

What makes a man? Not physical man but cultural man. Its hard to describe but it feels like it does exist. So why dont we list the attributes or behaviours that make us feel more manly. Here are some of mine: - taking a punch and getting up. - realising I prefer a smoky whisky over...

www.bigfooty.com

Awesome get.

It was a joke thread. Mocking the very concept of behaviours based on sex. But maybe malfice truly believes it.

 

[Chief]

 

[Gethelred]

I sense the above two posts are in violent agreement with one another.

Though it does beg the question... What dictates gender if not biology or behaviour?

It prompts the question. 'Begging the question' is something different.

Begging the question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nothing expressly dictates gender. 'Who' you are is more than your sexual orientation, more than the behaviours you put forth into the world, your habits and your likes and dislikes. You - the person behind the nomme de plume, Fadge - are more than sheer hatred of Carlton coupled with a dislike of research, even if you are defined by or choose to define yourself by those attributes.

Identity =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your sexual orientation =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your biological sex =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your likes/dislikes =/= gender, but they determine some part of your gender.
Your behaviour =/= gender, but it influences some part of your gender.

The other side of it is that each of these playes a role in shaping gender or identity, but the degree to which each specific thing is more or less important is an individual choice. Some people define themselves by their race. Some people define themselves by their jobs. Some by the team they support, their never ceasing hatred of another team (or group), some by a god they worship, or an ideology.

That's part of why this is a both kind of an important conversation topic and rather silly that we're arguing about it; who each of us are is and has always been an individual's personal choice. Only now are there people who are happy to inform people that their identity is not their personal choice, because their choice isn't one that they think is acceptable.

 

[Gethelred]

It was a joke thread. Mocking the very concept of behaviours based on sex. But maybe malfice truly believes it.

I recall, about six or so months ago, informing you that this specific kind of disingenuousness bites those who interact with you only once, where it bites you over and over.

If you can at any point turn around and say, "I was joking/being ironic," we are entitled to never take what you say at face value. Malifice can therefore ignore you, as nothing you have said in here is something that he can reliably assume you actively think or believe. You won't last, because your ideas are only as deep as your commitment to them; you've not thought them through, because you may need to discard them.

Have a think about it, Seeds. You're already treated as above on this forum. No-one trusts you to actually believe anything you say. You're not even a devil's advocate, because a devil's advocate has more of a commitment to the truth or reality than you do. A devil's advocate can at least be treated as though there are objective facts which can be agreed upon.

If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted. That's the consequence of this kind of behaviour, Seeds.

 

[Seeds]

I recall, about six or so months ago, informing you that this specific kind of disingenuousness bites those who interact with you only once, where it bites you over and over.

If you can at any point turn around and say, "I was joking/being ironic," we are entitled to never take what you say at face value. Malifice can therefore ignore you, as nothing you have said in here is something that he can reliably assume you actively think or believe. You won't last, because your ideas are only as deep as your commitment to them; you've not thought them through, because you may need to discard them.

Have a think about it, Seeds. You're already treated as above on this forum. No-one trusts you to actually believe anything you say. You're not even a devil's advocate, because a devil's advocate has more of a commitment to the truth or reality than you do. A devil's advocate can at least be treated as though there are objective facts which can be agreed upon.

If you can't be trusted, you can't be trusted. That's the consequence of this kind of behaviour, Seeds.

thought the humour was pretty obvious. But alas i broke my own rule about written humour and didnt use smiley faces so fair enough. I have no problem claiming men and women on average tend to act certain ways. But claiming those actions are what defines being male and female is a completely different thing. Any man or women can act any way they want. It doesnt make them less female or male.


forums arent about trust. They are just about ideas and topics. It doesnt matter if the poster making a point was a hypocrite on another topic. All that matters is does their point make sense on the current topic being discussed given the reason provided.

we arent debating the status of the poster making a point. We are just debating the topic.

 

[Gethelred]

forums arent about trust.

Arguments are. If you don't trust the person you're arguing with to do so in good faith, there is no point in arguing with them.

You need to ask yourself what you're gaining by arguing simply whatever it takes to win.

They are just about ideas and topics. It doesnt matter if the poster making a point was a hypocrite on another topic. All that matters is does their point make sense on the current topic being discussed given the reason provided.

Nope. It's not about hypocrisy or consistency. It's about the depth of thought implied by the very fact of thinking something is true. It is through deeper understanding (even belief) that arguments in favour or against things arise, and those arguments are thought through and tested.

Being unable to shift from your position is bad, but lacking a position in the first place is just as bad.

 

[Seeds]

This sort of thing has been explained so many times. There are everything from magazine articles to blog posts to Tik Tok videos on it.

I'm not feeding sea lions no mo'.

Again pointing to other sources without explaining yourself. Its the sign of 1)emperors new clothes or 2) highly co-ordinated trolling.

you previously said go to malfice when i asked you to provide the definition. He can explain why gender is different to sex you said. Its so obvious you said. Think you called me a simpleton or something similar. So i went to malfice. His explanation is social behaviours. I find this incredibly backwards. But maybe im confused. I wont discount that. I ask for an explanation of social behaviours to find out exactly what he meant. Cant see any posts in this thread that explain what he means by social Behaviours. He disapears from the thread. Usually what someone does when their view has been unravelled. Since you are clearly a fan of malfices view then maybe you can explain what social behaviours are female and male? you said it was obvious after all.

 

[Seeds]

View attachment 1313766

can you explain what those enacted roles and behaviours under gender are? What defines male and female behaviours?

 

[Seeds]

Arguments are. If you don't trust the person you're arguing with to do so in good faith, there is no point in arguing with them.

You need to ask yourself what you're gaining by arguing simply whatever it takes to win.

Nope. It's not about hypocrisy or consistency. It's about the depth of thought implied by the very fact of thinking something is true. It is through deeper understanding (even belief) that arguments in favour or against things arise, and those arguments are thought through and tested.

Being unable to shift from your position is bad, but lacking a position in the first place is just as bad.

No thats completely wrong. Arguments have nothing to do with trust. They are based solely off logic and evidence. Trust has zero to do with argument. Trust is what religion is based off.

 

[Gethelred]

No thats completely wrong. Arguments have nothing to do with trust. They are based solely off logic and evidence. Trust has zero to do with argument. Trust is what religion is based off.

Arguments are not without purpose; the purpose being, to test your ideas against other ideas, to seek truth. Objectivism is thoroughly based on relative facts; if fact A is demonstrably true, what can be evaluated/extrapolated from fact A? Can we get to fact B?

If you cannot trust the other person on the other end of the argument to argue in good faith - to not misrepresent or deliberately misinterpret fact A - then there is no point in arguing with that person. Their positions are false, because they are not based on facts A through Z.

Logic and evidence are the means by which arguments are resolved, not the foundation on which they are based.

 

[Chief]

can you explain what those enacted roles and behaviours under gender are? What defines male and female behaviours?

Have a read around the place.

 

[Chief]

Again pointing to other sources without explaining yourself. Its the sign of 1)emperors new clothes or 2) highly co-ordinated trolling.

Hahahahaa!

 

[Fadge]

It prompts the question. 'Begging the question' is something different.

Begging the question - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Nothing expressly dictates gender. 'Who' you are is more than your sexual orientation, more than the behaviours you put forth into the world, your habits and your likes and dislikes. You - the person behind the nomme de plume, Fadge - are more than sheer hatred of Carlton coupled with a dislike of research, even if you are defined by or choose to define yourself by those attributes.

Identity =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your sexual orientation =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your biological sex =/= gender, but it determines some part of gender.
Your likes/dislikes =/= gender, but they determine some part of your gender.
Your behaviour =/= gender, but it influences some part of your gender.

The other side of it is that each of these playes a role in shaping gender or identity, but the degree to which each specific thing is more or less important is an individual choice. Some people define themselves by their race. Some people define themselves by their jobs. Some by the team they support, their never ceasing hatred of another team (or group), some by a god they worship, or an ideology.

That's part of why this is a both kind of an important conversation topic and rather silly that we're arguing about it; who each of us are is and has always been an individual's personal choice. Only now are there people who are happy to inform people that their identity is not their personal choice, because their choice isn't one that they think is acceptable.

I suspect this is merely 'your view', and not necessarily the correct answer.

For example, Malifice has previously stated Gender is ALL about social behaviours.

Maybe one day we'll have a definitive answer?