Gender/non binary question.

[Anonymous]

Just to preface this, I'm a liberal feminist and most of my friends identify as the same. That being said, I really just don't understand this new uptick in being "non binary". I think it certainly exists, but probably not in the droves of people who are claiming it. I can't ask any of my friends about this because they would say I'm terrible for having these thoughts. I think that people should be able to decide what gender/sexuality they prefer but when people elect to be neither gender it just gets messy from a logistical standpoint and then someone is always offended. I have a friend from high school who very publicly on fb declared that she is non binary and will not be going by her "dead name" and only wants "they/them" pronouns. Okay, I can respect that. However I have other non b friends who say that it is offensive to assign them a gender or misgender them behind their back when referrring to them to other people. This is where it's weird for me. For example, when I refer to my friend when talking to my mom, I really don't want to explain the complexity of this friend's gender (or lack of) so I still refer to them as "her". Obviously I feel like a shitty person for all of this and I guess I'm also kinda confused??

[Anonymous]

I don't think you have to assign a gender to someone when you're talking about them. If they prefer they/them/their pronouns, just use those. If your mom has questions about the use of those pronouns, you can just shrug and say "that's what Larlex wants." If your mom asks further questions, you can respond honestly that you're not sure why. That's okay!

I understand that this is slightly different from talking to your mom about a friend she might know, but I've never been in a conversation using a person's name or they/them/their pronouns where someone has interrupted me to ask,"but wait, what's that person's gender?"

[Anonymous]

I have issues with non-binary and subject verb agreement. I have read Judith Butler and understand the argument but the grammarian in me can't do it. Language is limiting but we need to come up with new pronouns.

[Anonymous]

And why does your friend police your language? I have a trans friend who I occasionally call her by her old name! She cuts me slack because I have known her for years.. and the bulk of those years as male.

[Anonymous]

You are not a bad person. You're likely confused because it is confusing and often logically inconsistent. It doesn't help that it seems conversations on the subject are only allowed in two contexts: from the conservative angle which holds that this is the downfall of western society, or from the liberal angle that holds to even ask questions about it means you are a bigot. Both angles, unfortunately, often only serve to reinforce sexist stereotypes.

From what I've observed personally, non-binary identification seems to stem from an attempt to distance oneself from the expectations/treatment of a man or woman in society; from restrictive, rigid gender stereotypes; or, sorry to say, wanting a "special" identification so you're not just like every other "boring" person.

What does it mean to be nonbinary? The Human Rights Campaign defines it as someone who identifies as both male and female, or as neither. But if gender identification is based on internal feelings and personality traits, rather than sex/biology, then everyone is non-binary.

Here's an excellent, worthwhile read by feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper: "The Idea That Gender Is a Spectrum Is a New Gender Prison" https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-i...-a-new-gender-prison

[Anonymous]

What is a "dead name"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with non-binary and subject verb agreement. I have read Judith Butler and understand the argument but the grammarian in me can't do it. Language is limiting but we need to come up with new pronouns.

THIS!! They/them is grammatically incongruous with he/she or him/her. They/them are plural. A better equivalent would be "it" but that seems horribly de-humanizing.

What about "shim" or "sher" instead?

Identify however you want, people, but PLEASE don't require everyone to overlook basic grammar to avoid being offensive.

[Anonymous]

These people are insane and want attention.

There have always been people like this.

Their methods change every generation.

[Anonymous]

I just think the whole non binary thing is overblown. It's fine if you are attracted to the same sex or opposite sex, it's fine if you were born male and want to be/feel more comfortable as a female (or vice versa) but for the love of god you need to pick one.

Side note: if we are trying to distance ourselves from gender roles, why is it even necessary to be "neither" or "both". For example I'm a woman who loves dresses and "feminine" things but I also love motor biking so should I identify as "both"? No, I can just state that I'm a female who enjoys both female and male dominated hobbies/styles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is a "dead name"?

"Deadname" is the term for the original name of a transgender person pre-transition. For example, Caitlyn Jenner's "deadname" is Bruce. It's called a deadname because it represents a painful portion of the transitioned person's past.

Using someone's "deadname" could be harmful because by referencing a trans person's former name in front of someone who doesn't know they're trans, you're outing them. But beyond that, activists say it is harmful to use a person's former name in any context. To return the the Caitlyn Jenner reference, activists also say that articles about Jenner should not use the phrase "formerly known as Bruce Jenner," or anything along those lines. The name Bruce should never be referred to again. For example, some say that when Jenner first publicly announced that Caitlyn would be her new name, articles should not have said "Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself." It should have only been "Transgender Olympian Announces New Name," with no mention of "Bruce" anywhere in the article or headline.

Caitlyn Jenner, by the way, doesn't agree with this- in her recent memoir, she says that Bruce existed for 65 years and she won't erase that. It's an individual thing, I suppose. But the activists say it should never be used.

Recently, there was controversy over an article published in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia for this very thing. Because the writer, a philosophy professor, mentioned that Caitlyn Jenner was previously known as Bruce, there was a (successful) petition created to get the article removed, accusing the author of violence, deadnaming, and transphobia. The article was retracted and an apology was issued by the journal. An article on the controversy from New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/...cle-controversy.html

[Anonymous]

The whole thing honestly comes off as "I was to be special". It's often the people who may be quirky or different than their peers and they are looking for their "true self"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a "dead name"?

"Deadname" is the term for the original name of a transgender person pre-transition. For example, Caitlyn Jenner's "deadname" is Bruce. It's called a deadname because it represents a painful portion of the transitioned person's past.

Using someone's "deadname" could be harmful because by referencing a trans person's former name in front of someone who doesn't know they're trans, you're outing them. But beyond that, activists say it is harmful to use a person's former name in any context. To return the the Caitlyn Jenner reference, activists also say that articles about Jenner should not use the phrase "formerly known as Bruce Jenner," or anything along those lines. The name Bruce should never be referred to again. For example, some say that when Jenner first publicly announced that Caitlyn would be her new name, articles should not have said "Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself." It should have only been "Transgender Olympian Announces New Name," with no mention of "Bruce" anywhere in the article or headline.

Caitlyn Jenner, by the way, doesn't agree with this- in her recent memoir, she says that Bruce existed for 65 years and she won't erase that. It's an individual thing, I suppose. But the activists say it should never be used.

Recently, there was controversy over an article published in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia for this very thing. Because the writer, a philosophy professor, mentioned that Caitlyn Jenner was previously known as Bruce, there was a (successful) petition created to get the article removed, accusing the author of violence, deadnaming, and transphobia. The article was retracted and an apology was issued by the journal. An article on the controversy from New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/...cle-controversy.html

The last paragraph is when I feel like we are running amok with this whole gender obsession. If I decide to become a man, yes I want to be addressed and seen as male and probably by a new name (in my case because my name is very female). However, the fact that you are now presenting in the way that you feel you're meant to be doesn't erase history. You were not born a male. You were born female. I have seen a trans friend try really hard to recreate/ edit childhood pictures so that she looks like a girl. Honestly it just looked like she was hurting her mom when she burned all these pictures of herself as a boy. I get that it is about the trans person wanting to be perceived the way they feel, but there are other peoples lives involved as well. Shaming your friends/family for messing up or saying something unintentionally insensitive is really obnoxious as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with non-binary and subject verb agreement. I have read Judith Butler and understand the argument but the grammarian in me can't do it. Language is limiting but we need to come up with new pronouns.

THIS!! They/them is grammatically incongruous with he/she or him/her. They/them are plural. A better equivalent would be "it" but that seems horribly de-humanizing.

What about "shim" or "sher" instead?

Identify however you want, people, but PLEASE don't require everyone to overlook basic grammar to avoid being offensive.

I'm the PP who responded first in this topic, saying "just use they/them/their" if that's what your friend wants, and there shouldn't be a problem with people trying to clarify gender. I'm also a huge grammar nerd, so it took me a while to come around to using "they" as a singular pronoun. If you're anything like me (and if you're a grammar nerd, you are), you'll find this conversation about how style guides have adapted to be really interesting: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/gr...onouns-singular-they

Here's the thing. English is a living language. It changes and adapts to fit the needs of its speakers. People used "they" as a singular all the way back in the 16th century. Shakespeare and Jane Austen used it. (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html) It's much easier to use words that already exist than to make up new ones like "shim" and "sher," even putting aside the fact that "shim" and "shemale" have been used as a derogatory slur for transgender people and cross-dressers for decades.

Tl;dr: there is lots of literary and historical precedent for using "they/them/their" as singular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a "dead name"?

"Deadname" is the term for the original name of a transgender person pre-transition. For example, Caitlyn Jenner's "deadname" is Bruce. It's called a deadname because it represents a painful portion of the transitioned person's past.

Using someone's "deadname" could be harmful because by referencing a trans person's former name in front of someone who doesn't know they're trans, you're outing them. But beyond that, activists say it is harmful to use a person's former name in any context. To return the the Caitlyn Jenner reference, activists also say that articles about Jenner should not use the phrase "formerly known as Bruce Jenner," or anything along those lines. The name Bruce should never be referred to again. For example, some say that when Jenner first publicly announced that Caitlyn would be her new name, articles should not have said "Caitlyn Jenner, Formerly Bruce, Introduces Herself." It should have only been "Transgender Olympian Announces New Name," with no mention of "Bruce" anywhere in the article or headline.

Caitlyn Jenner, by the way, doesn't agree with this- in her recent memoir, she says that Bruce existed for 65 years and she won't erase that. It's an individual thing, I suppose. But the activists say it should never be used.

Recently, there was controversy over an article published in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia for this very thing. Because the writer, a philosophy professor, mentioned that Caitlyn Jenner was previously known as Bruce, there was a (successful) petition created to get the article removed, accusing the author of violence, deadnaming, and transphobia. The article was retracted and an apology was issued by the journal. An article on the controversy from New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/...cle-controversy.html

The last paragraph is when I feel like we are running amok with this whole gender obsession. If I decide to become a man, yes I want to be addressed and seen as male and probably by a new name (in my case because my name is very female). However, the fact that you are now presenting in the way that you feel you're meant to be doesn't erase history. You were not born a male. You were born female. I have seen a trans friend try really hard to recreate/ edit childhood pictures so that she looks like a girl. Honestly it just looked like she was hurting her mom when she burned all these pictures of herself as a boy. I get that it is about the trans person wanting to be perceived the way they feel, but there are other peoples lives involved as well. Shaming your friends/family for messing up or saying something unintentionally insensitive is really obnoxious as well.

There's a lot of censorship around the topic of gender these days, and it's troubling.

I genuinely sympathize with those who experience sex dysphoria or who struggle with gender identity issues. However, I think the current wave of transgender/gender-identity activism is harming these people much more than helping. And beyond that, there are negative consequences for broader society.

I think those of us who consider ourselves progressive and open should take care to not mistake "accepting" for "unthinking." When you're barred from even mentioning something, even in the case of sincere inquiry and desire to understand, is that really progress?

[Anonymous]

I'm going to admit it... I wasn't up to date on the non-binary culture until recently when my daughter's classmate came over to work on a project and beforehand my daughter said, "mom, just so you know, Alex is non-binary." I had to do some quick Googling even after she explained it to me and really think about what I was going to say before I said anything out loud. I did slip once with "do you guys need a snack?" and I got the Teen Eyeroll of Doom from my kid.

But now that I've learned about non-binary, I do see it more and more around me. During a college visit, many of the kids introducing themselves in the small tour group started with, "I'm Jane, I go by she/her" and "I'm Paul, they/them, please."