6 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Do non-binary identities reenforce gender stereotypes?
This doesn't explain WHAT an "internal sense of gender" consists of, why anyone would adopt one or reject one.
The way you explain "nonbinary", makes me believe most everyone is "nonbinary", by not having some inherent sense of "identity" to a term with no social definition.
What you think of as cisgender people finding this concept difficult, is actually just a bunch of agender people who have no idea how this "gender" concept can even exist and reject it, more often having a social identity to sex, rather than some personal identity to a completely individual manifested concept of gender, to which then some people illogically want to be leveraged as a collective label.
It's not about one's body parts being "right", or their expression being "right". Most people just believe if they are male, they are a man. Even if they'd desire to be female, they'd BE a male, and are thus a man. Because that's all it conveys. That it a humanized term for the sexes. Not a label for one's "gender identity" or any aspect of WHO someone IS. Most people don't have a "gender identity" that "matches" their "assigned gender at birth". They simply have never registered or completely reject the logic of a "gender" being an aspect of identity.
If you couldn't use the reasoning of body parts, hormones, social roles, etc -- how would you know what gender you are? What do you feel like? What is your internal sense of who you are?
Why would your "feelings" be linked to gender categories? Why does my internal sense of who I am have to be categorized into the label of "gender"? None of this makes any sense.
That's the very issue. If gender has no societal classification and is just a individually created concept, it means nothing and conveys nothing amongst society and is useless as a categorical label.
Under gender identity, the labels of man, woman, trans, cis, non-binary mean NOTHING. You know nothing about a person by these labels as they are completely personally assigned and can mean what ever that person wants it to mean. Thus it's useless as a categorical term.
Comment by flimflam_machine at 14/01/2025 at 13:36 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This hits the nail on the head (except for the label of "agender" which still implies acceptance of gender as a framework of categories for people).
Comment by Wave_Evolution at 14/01/2025 at 08:28 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
It is useless except when you consider one fact:
Gender and Sex historically are synonyms conveying the same idea. Thus gender is not a social construct.
The separation of the terms was political, for the sake of enabling this gender identity mental masturbation. Your gender is your sex.