I did, and the notion that someone who otherwise has no actual power over you could just make something up (completely setting aside whether it's actually made up) and thereby wield something worth being afraid of over you suggests a problem on your end.

I don't know what distinction most people make between sex and gender. I assumed most considered them synonymous although a sociologist professor claimed sex was the XX or XY and gender was the feminine or masculine characteristics. And the definitions of those categories is open to interpretation.

I simply want a world where ideas are more clear. A philosophy professor I had said philosophy's main purpose these days is to clarify ideas. I know calling a person male or female may tell you relatively little in a few cases. But it is defined by chromosomes. It doesn't box a person in. Men can have long hair like vikings, or where silks. That doesn't matter. I just think when asking a person their sex it shouldn't be a complex question. Again, it might not express even as much as 80% as much as what one hopes to know for sure. This only means that more questions are needed. But each question should be clear in what it's asking. There can be many spectrums.

Nice

Non-binary people aren't necessarily genderless. — Pfhorrest

In my opinion binary people are either 1 (one) or 0 (zero).

I don't want to think of myself as a Zero. Much less in lower case, as a zero.

So, by the process of elimination, I'm a one. 1. One, one, One, or The One.

This fits with my language usage as well, as I often say, "One is not amused" when I catch one of my subjects utter a really bad pun.

So I call "one". Everyone has the right to name oneself the way he wants. I am not sure if this right applies to everyzero.

So those around me, the seven or so billion, please raise your hand if you are a binary zero.

No? None? You see, we are each one, distinct and separate, ones.

We are not binary. We are urinary.

I did, and the notion that someone who otherwise has no actual power over you could just make something up (completely setting aside whether it's actually made up) and thereby wield something worth being afraid of over you suggests a problem on your end. — Pfhorrest

It's just another thing that people can manipulate others with; as such, it's yet another cause of concern, yet another thing to be prepared for.

A "problem on my end"? Fuck you for that. Perhaps you live somewhere where you get to cast the first stone and thus establish your supremacy.

If one were to estimate the number of people who are non-binary or trans by counting media references, one would come up with double digit figures. I don't know, how about 20%--that's a nice round number. Don't like 20%? Well then, .05%? 9%? 13%? 17%? Take your pick.

Or, how many homosexuals are there? By 'homosexual' I mean someone whose sex life is focused on same-sex relationships and who self-identifies as 'homosexual. It "used to be" a small number--around 2.5% Over time, gay activists / advocates jacked up the figure to 10%. If 1 in 10 men are homosexual, I'd like to know who was getting my share all those years!

Are the varieties of sexuality actually increasing in number, or is this an illusion produced by the chattering classes?

The Media tend to like 'hot topics'. No surprise, there. Soybean production figures make for extremely dull talk shows and imminently boring New Yorker articles. Let's talk about the exciting, hot new trans-sexuals / trans-genders, Heinz 57-categories of non-binary and asexual identities. It doesn't matter how many there are. They are the latest cause celebre.

Oppressed minorities are also a current hot topic among the chattering classes. Women, of course; but also blacks, asians, indigenous, illegal immigrants, et cetera. White male homosexual had our moment in gay liberation, around 50 years ago, with up-ticks for AIDS and gay marriage. We are passé at this point. I guess we've been mainstreamed, so... just another bunch of privileged white guys.

What individuals say and display about themselves may be a proxy for something else. A non-sexual example: Back in the day, images of Che Guevara were ubiquitous among "hippies". Were they really interested in the genuinely revolutionary politics of Guevara, or were they using his image as a proxy for their mildly counter-cultural rebelliousness? The latter, clearly.

"Trans" and "non-binary" identity may also be a proxy for other dissatisfactions and conflicts that people experience. I wouldn't say that is always the case, but it may be, quite often.

Keep a bucket of salt handy, so you can take the several grains needed when you hear or read about this stuff.

That was my point. That if we would think in terms of spectrums instead of black and white, humans would be a lot happier.

I do agree that philosophy is here to make things clear. A clear mind is a healthy mind.

The 'problem' (if you believe in problems) is the fact that we can alter our DNA. We can choose to fix our sex/gender. Humans have become very unnatural for better or worse. For example there is nothing natural about this conversation we're having.

Nevertheless it's a pleasant experience.

The 'problem' (if you believe in problems) is the fact that we can alter our DNA. — TaySan

??? This is not true. At least not in a biologically fully formed individual. We can alter our DNA in the zygote stage, and that has lead to nothing so far. Aside form that being unethical.

Our x-rays also can alter the genetic make-up of our zygotes, of our cells, but not in a planned way or directed way.

Nothing in the human body, in zygotes, or in early human development can man (i.e. science) change a Y chromosome into an X and vice versa.

So how do you mean we (humans) can alter our DNA? I think the fact is that you can't alter one of the two X chromosomes in a pair to be Ys in all the cells of a body, and the other way around. It is impossible. In fact, you can't even change one cell's Y into X.

I'm not speaking out against the notion of thinking of spectrums. I am speaking out against impossible propositions.

I believe strongly that in humans, gender is NOT defined by the sex chromosome pairs. But sex is defined by them. The difference is that sex is biological, gender is psychological. I believe a man who claims he is a woman trapped in a male body. No problem. But it is him who also says "male body".

What we need is: more tolerance, more understanding, and more clear thinking. Less bigotry, less bs, less muddled-up thinking.

I hear the term non-binary more and more including in many online surveys yet according to Wikipedia anyway only about 10,000 people in the world identify as non-binary amongst billions of people. Isn't it a little extreme to let such a small group try to dictate whether or not a person can denounce all gender? Lol. It's fine to be more masculine or feminine, but one can't really say they are genderless? — TiredThinker

My issue is not with whether people choose to identify as non-binary, but with the projection of expectations upon others based upon this choice. Language evolves as a function of collective use, not selective pressures. And it is a slippery slope. What is to prevent me from identifying as a completely unique gender, and applying all kinds of linguistic constraints which other people then not only have to respect, but follow in general usage? If a minority of a few thousand has this authority, why not a minority of a few hundred? Or one?

Non-binary writers should adopt these conventions and they should trickle into culture thereby. The same way that culture and language have evolved since the beginning of time.

Whether it's happened in humans or not, gene-editing with CRISPR is happening and it shows how humans defy nature with the use of technology. For better and worse.

I have not heard of science changing sex chromosomes but certainly more subtle things have been changed in early stages of a beings life or in the case of sickle cell anemia in maybe 2 cases as possible cure.

As far as spectrums I don't agree in terms of sex. One is either male or female. Their sexuality can be a position along a 1D line, their sense of masculinity or feminity can be a position along a 1D line, but trying to muddy the definitions by combining them doesn't make sense. Multidimensional is how I see it. Not so much spectral.

I am actually for deconstructing gender.

I want all children to have access to all paths in life as they grow up. It’s not just about the physical objects of the dress vs. the truck, it’s about the experiences and emotions that go along with those things.

Not only that, I think that the world is limited by creating things that are either “for men” or “for women”. Someone mentioned the nonbinary artist that couldn’t be nominated for an award because the award categories were split by gender. The awards are judged on how well the “male artist” songs express “masculinity”, and how well the “female artist” songs express “femininity”. They don’t know how to comprehend songs that express neither. They don’t know how to make songs that express neither.

I don’t want people to just be able to choose between the “male” package and “female” package. I don’t just want to expand those packages a little (though honestly, what I see people doing is just copy-pasting the “male” package into the “female” package, and just throwing out the things that were in the “female” package as if they’re completely worthless, not expanding access to those things at all.)

I want things to not be presented in packages at all.

I want everything unpackaged and mixed together. I want people to pick things up and use their creativity to figure out what to do with the things, instead of being told what to use and what to do with it.

We need a world full of nonbinary people to express all the colors besides black and white. Not just shades of grey — colors and textures and three-dimensional shapes.

The world binary people see *really is* Sharpie stick figures on a plain white paper, compared with the world people could see if gender were deconstructed.

Also, hi, I live in Japan, there’s way more nonbinary/androgynous music and theater here than in the West.

I assume when you say gender you mean masculinity/femininity versus sex. Personally I am all for sex never being a consideration when hiring people for any job and shouldn't even be on an application. I don't know too much music that I would call feminine or masculine. Perhaps in country music the roles are more strictly defined, but I think in more pop music after 2000 the topics are too generic and meaningless that assigning a gender quality is pointless. Lol.

Male and female are the physical distinction, it’s man and woman that are the social abstraction therefrom. — Pfhorrest

Does this mean that "doe" and "buck", and "queen" and "drone" are social distinctions? Biology points to morphological, physiological and behavioral differences of not just male and female but between humans and deer and bees. "Man" and "woman" are terms that refer to both sex and species whereas "male" and "female" point to just the sex.

Says...? That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

Which is it? Is there no correct usage, or does common curtesy determine correct usage?

I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and it would be common curtesy to address me as I would like. From now on, you can address me as "My Master".

What's a non-binary? Neither male nor female I suppose. My hunch is that there's a lot that's involved in gender determination and as we all know that translates to more ways for things to go wrong and I don't mean that in a disparaging way against any of the myriad gender identities that are around. — TheMadFool

Great question. It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. What makes sex/gender so special that people that identify as something that they are not and then their assertions simply accepted without question? Take, for example, my assertion above that I am a Dark Sith Lord. Why do you question my self-identification, but not a man who says that they are not a man, but something else?

Which is it? Is there no correct usage, or does common curtesy determine correct usage? — Harry Hindu

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur.

My issue is not with whether people choose to identify as non-binary, but with the projection of expectations upon others based upon this choice. Language evolves as a function of collective use, not selective pressures. And it is a slippery slope. What is to prevent me from identifying as a completely unique gender, and applying all kinds of linguistic constraints which other people then not only have to respect, but follow in general usage? If a minority of a few thousand has this authority, why not a minority of a few hundred? Or one? — Pantagruel

Great question. It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. — Harry Hindu

Exactly. There are ways to make oneself seem special and thus demand to be given special status and to be allowed not to play by society's norms. In a culture that has a strong tendency toward political correctness, such people who demand such special status can do very well, as the politically correct majority tries to accomodate them.

What makes sex/gender so special that people that identify as something that they are not and then their assertions simply accepted without question? Take, for example, my assertion above that I am a Dark Sith Lord. Why do you question my self-identification, but not a man who says that they are not a man, but something else?

Good question.

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Banno

Who decides whether a person is male, female, or whatever?

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Banno

It's not a non sequitur. It's a question asking you how you reconcile your own contradictory statement.

I also asked you to address me as "My Master". I'm deeply offended that you won't address me as common courtesy dictates.

It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. — Harry Hindu

There is nothing new in that. Nero identified himself as the benevolent, loving emperor. Hitler identified himself as the savior of the Arian races. My neighbor identifies herself as the world's most beautiful woman. My mailman identifies himself as a caricaturist, I identify myself as a man with a very good sense of humor, you identify yourself as the master of Banno, and Banno identifies himself as a know-it-all.

Obviously in the above list the identities assumed to apply to the self are a far cry from reality.

It does not even need to be restricted to the human race to identify yourself as something you are not. For instance, my dog identifies himself as the lord of the manor, and my cat identifies herself as the person for whom the world has been created to be her playground.

----------------------------------

I believe that there are people who are truly repulsed by their own body, due to their sexual characteristics. This makes them reject their own sexual nature, and identify with its opposite, or with an alternative. This is not even arguable, there are tons of evidence to support this. This is akin to hetero men watching homosexual porn, or else truly gay men watching straight porn. It's a huge turn off -- and if your own body turns you off the same way and with the same intensity, what the heck are you supposed to do with it?

I believe also that there is not only strictly homosexual or else heterosexual attraction. There could be a mix of those affecting the same person. These are not changed over the course of life at any point, and one is stuck with this outlook practically from birth. This may be one reason to name sexuality non-binary.

And finally, those who are accommodated in questionnaires to name their "sex" with a choice of "male", "female", "other", "mix", "neither", "funny you should ask", "who wants to know", "I've hoped you could tell me", and "fuck off", are not the ones that decided to do this. It is done by the same philosophy of our leadership that bans hate speech, that encourages tolerance, that makes sure nobody has to die unnecessarily, and that people of any color, race, national origin or religion can fully participate in the social context of the countries in which the questionnaire is altered thus.

I cited a specific issue: turning the sexual chromosomes into their opposite in all body cells. That has not, to my knowledge, been done yet. Maybe you have a source document that claims that?

No I don't. I should have been more specific, went a little bit off topic.

I'd like to try a quick return to basics. Pretty much all of us are born male or female. This being our assignment to one side or the other in the equation - or dance if you will - of reproduction. And pretty much all of us possess the gift from God or evolution (or both) of the capacity for the pleasure given to induce us to reproduce.

And we seem to be in the second or third generation of the dawning of the "age of Aquarius," by which I mean that lots of people seem to have realized that the pleasures of sex can be had in circumstances remote from reproduction, and found therein wholly new expressions of self. I cannot help but regard this as an absolute form of freedom, although myself a dinosaur in this new world.

But along with equipment is DNA. And it is not at all clear to me that DNA is ultimately as determinative as equipment. There's culture, there's estrogen and testosterone. But the reality of the nature of nature (v. nurture), is seemingly open-ended. On Youtube are many videos of rescued animals being released into protected natural habitats after years or a lifetime in a cage, some having never felt grass or sunlight. It seems to me that, similarly, large numbers of people are on that threshold into an extraordinary free and new world, out of a history of constraint and often violent suppression. Will ultimately a pleasure principle prevail, or is equipment our fate?

I believe that there are people who are truly repulsed by their own body, due to their sexual characteristics. This makes them reject their own sexual nature, and identify with its opposite, or with an alternative. — god must be atheist

I never denied that people believe certain things. I'm questioning the validity of their belief, just as you question the validity that I'm a Dark Sith Lord, and just as you question the validity of the belief that an anorexic person believing that they are fat. Again, what makes sex/gender so special that claims or beliefs about one's sex/gender are just accepted without question when they contradict observations? Seems to me that the West has a sex/gender identity fetish.

That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

You seem perplexed, Banno. My point was that you are wrong on both counts. There is a correct usage but it has nothing to do with common courtesy. Science doesn't concern itself with common courtesy. It just calls it how it sees them.

Harry HIndu, you completely misread my post. it is I who does the believing, and the topic of the belief is not another belief, but a repulsion.

You go on believing that my belief is about somebody else's belief, and that an obvious thing like being male or female must not be a topic of belief.

Well, it isn't, if you read my post again. The people see their sex/gender. There is no belief, no mistake about it. They are repulsed by it. No belief, no mistake about it.

Then you took my post, materially misunderstood it, and misrepresented it, made therefore a Strawman argument.

Please read carefully.

Harry HIndu, you completely misread my post. — god must be atheist

I was going to say the same about you and my posts.

Well, it isn't, if you read my post again. The people see their sex/gender. There is no belief, no mistake about it. They are repulsed by it. No belief, no mistake about it. — god must be atheist

What REASON would they be repulsed? Why are others not repulsed? It seems to me that it is a difference in beliefs about bodies.

You go on believing that my belief is about somebody else's belief, and that an obvious thing like being male or female must not be a topic of belief. — god must be atheist

That's what a social construction is - a SHARED belief, not an individual belief that contradicts the social construction. So is gender a social construction, or a personal inclination?

Carry on, Harry Hindu. You seem to have a very viable and fruitful conversation with yourself, totally ignoring others' input. Must be an interesting world inside your head.