6 upvotes, 3 direct replies (showing 3)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
I would say it might possibly be based on what a MAJORITY of individuals from that category do.
It does not requite a majority at all. It happens at the intersection of imagined possibility and cultural acceptance.
You can’t just do something and go “this is now something that x category does”. It absolutely does not work that way.
Actually, that is how it works. It doesn't just happen instantly, bur rather over time. For example, we don't think of child-rearing as a male responsibility in the US. At the same time, in Sweden it is and that's because that's something that men within that society do and was shaped by individual choices and by government policy over time. If it weren't possible to do change gender role, such a change or shift wouldn't be possible either.
--------------------------------------
As it relates to gender roles, it's very similar. If a person alone says "I'm non-binary", it doesn't make the non-binary category a thing. The core argument here is then that energy put towards creating new gender categories could be instead used on loosening the gender roles that exist. OP seems to believe this would be a better outcome and I tend to agree with her.
Comment by gay_drugs at 14/01/2025 at 11:02 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This isn't an attack on your idea like the other person, but an attack on the way you're arguing the point.
It does not requite a majority at all.
You're playing a semantics game, whether you know it or not. Only in these types of conversations do we suddenly feel this way. Most black people who descended from slavery have some amount of white genetics, but we don't call them white based on a technicality due to some small minority of genes they possess. If a student excells in every class except math, we don't call them stupid because of a minority of subject matter they struggle with. Why are we suddenly drawing the line here and acting like there is no concept of vocabulary following a mojority rule? It happens all the time. For example, look at the word veganism. It had a very clear and intentional meaning, which has been bastardized due to the majority of people using it another way. Vernacular follows the general concensus, whether you agree or not.
Actually, that is how it works. It doesn't just happen instantly, bur rather over time.
Do you not see how you just said, "actually, that's how it works", then proceeded to explain that it actaully doesn't work like that at all, but rather, "over time"? sometimes I think y'all just argue to be right. The person you were arguing with had a point there, but their point is irrelevant for various other reasons. If I do something no other men do, I can't say men do that. In fact, on a technical level, it's even more false, because it is a singular occurence, and I'm just one ***man***, not multiple men.
Comment by Competitive_News_385 at 15/01/2025 at 11:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It does not requite a majority at all. It happens at the intersection of imagined possibility and cultural acceptance.
Social constructs come from what society in general believe people should fit into.
Society in general means the majority of individuals within that society.
Thus, yes it does need to be the majority.
Because if it wasn't the majority then it wouldn't be possible to socially construct it.
Comment by Ok-Indication-2529 at 12/01/2025 at 20:45 UTC
-8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Shut up I’m done arguing about this bye