3 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
Sex is your physical body and hormone expression. Gender expression is your outward self-representation, how you express your gender, how you function in terms of social roles, etc. And of course there's the internal sense of gender.
For most people these things all align and so no thought at all goes into it - these people are referred to as "cis", and Latin prefix meaning "on the same side."
Not all people have this experience, and don't have the luxury of being able to put little to no thought into it. How freeing it would be, as you said, not to! (Yet I'm sure there's a quote somewhere about the unexamined life...) Where the body's sex doesn't match with your internal gender sense, that is referred to as "trans", or "on the other side."
You must be like 17 or something to think this is some sort of wise/expansive understanding of the phenomenon. It's written almost like some politically correct ChatGPT blurb or something. It's stated as fact even though its really just the the current opinion of gender studies departments whom have fallen in love Judith Butler. The problem is... this is ***one*** perspective. It's become enlightened in the last 10 years ago, but I'll remind you that 50 years ago the concept of gender barely existed. 50 years from now, it may not exist either or exist in a vastly different conceptualization. This idea that all of this is self-evident is really just a cognitive bias towards us thinking our beliefs are eternally right. However, there are other ways to conceptualize sex and gender and how one relates these concepts. None of this is the natural state of things and I can nearly guarantee you that your definition as quoted above will likely sound archaic in 50 years even as it seems obvious to you now. IMO, it's best to remain humble about these things and not preach like you're doing here.
I find it curious that you are talking about "now" standing outside of social norms - you must realise that these norms are painful to some, and stepping outside is like a breath of fresh air. Yes, other people can be tiring. It is what it is, and it's better than the feeling of suffocation.
It feels like a breath of fresh air in case where one has accepted the heuristic of gender, internalized it and views rebellion against it as a meaningful action. Is that the ideal response to address issues though? Generally, in therapy people are trying to shed triggers and negative attachments to the things that bother them and yet somehow this idea of modern gender ideology has managed to convince everyone exactly the opposite is the path towards greater enlightenment.
One thing I fail to see though, is how some people identifying as nonbinary limits the gender expression of people who aren't. They can freely move around within their genders, too, and are free to choose not to give a flying rat's if they so choose.
Umm, it's not clear that ideology and the way people are categorized affects the functioning of society? Let me introduce the concept of race to you (which is itself and abstraction in the same way gender is). Race was conceptualized as a way to differentiate humans based upon the perceived differences of skin color. In the 1600s, people didn't think it was thing and yet they definitely do now. In theory, it gives you another identity to play with and you can choose to emphasize or not. The flip side of it is that it also gives something to other you by as well. Does this additional way of describing ourselves bring us greater freedom or mutual understanding? If you follow its historical legacy, I would argue it doesn't.
In terms of new nonbinary gender categorization, who knows, it's still evolving, but the first indicators seem to be that its part of a labeling frenzy that doesn't seem to bring much use and rather yet another way of diving people into ever smaller identity groups that people fight about.
Comment by anti_level at 12/01/2025 at 15:13 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
You speak with way too much authority for someone with no source for any of your quantitative, incorrect claims, and your unnecessary antagonism reveals your bias. You are completely wrong about the history of understanding of race and gender as social concepts, you make (wrong) inferences about the actions of trans people as ‘rebellions’, and you dismiss the concept of nonbinary people as part of a ‘labeling frenzy’.
I think you are using a smug, base intellectualism as cover for your ignorance (at best) or bigotry (at worse) and it reveals that you clearly get your ‘information’ about trans people from YouTube videos and not from an honest understanding of the academic and scientific basis for the study of the social phenomenon of trans people. I think it’s nasty to come into a thread where someone is ostensibly asking honest questions and representing yourself as someone who understands sociology and social history when in reality your goal is clearly to pick fights and push an anti intellectual, ahistorical view of a complex social and biological concept.
Comment by AlmostCynical at 12/01/2025 at 16:57 UTC
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I think it’s admirable that you’re arguing with such conviction on a topic like this. However, I think what’s caused disagreement between you and other people is a miscommunication on what both parties mean by ‘gender’. You mention Judith Butler and academic gender a few times and while I do agree that the field of gender studies is relatively new, that’s not the ‘gender’ most people are talking about in discussions like this. When other people are talking about gender, they’re referring to innate gender identity as experienced by an individual. The whole gender theory stuff comes from examining the interaction between the identity and society, which while interesting, isn’t particularly relevant to most people. Gender identity is an innate and immutable part of the human brain, locked in from birth and proven to exist through experiments and observation, even in people who have no clue what gender theory is.
The idea of “my gender doesn’t match my body” is one that doesn’t need theorising or academia to bring into existence. Just about every single trans person finds out about it and experiences it first hand. And let me tell you, it’s really obvious. Judith Butler is not required here.
It’s only natural for someone without the full picture, but I think you’ve accidentally made an incorrect assumption about what people are doing when they try and understand their gender identity and express it outwardly. You seem to assume that it’s all about reconciling how they present against society and the expectations therein, shown by the way you describe presenting as non-binary as a “rebellion”. The truth is more that people are trying to present in a way that reflects their *internal* gender, with society being the secondary consideration. If your gender identity is neither a man nor a woman, the aim is to present in a way that is neither that of a man nor of a woman, society simply provides the framework of what that should look like. It’s a passive approach that follows the path of least resistance, not an active one that tries to be different. Both approaches may end up in the same place eventually, but the underlying logic and reasons are completely different.
Gender identity can’t be compared to race because race is an arbitrary collection of physical features determined by genetics, whereas gender is an innate part of the brain that forms by itself, separate from external influences. Gender identity has nothing to do with ideology because gender identity *can’t* any anything to do with ideology. A baby in the womb has no clue about the world around them and yet a gender identity manifests nonetheless. Think of it like this: most (binary) trans people desperately don’t want to be trans, yet they have to be because that’s what was decided for them. There’s no free will in gender identity, you have to work with the lot you’re given and that’s that.