Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
garrethdsouza
Senior Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:47 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: India

Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Post by garrethdsouza » Thu May 14, 2015 4:17 pm

There is a spectrum of distinct sexual orientations and gender identites apart from the gender binary heterosexual identity.

While there is more awareness about homosexuality this isn't often true for many orientations and identities.
For instance asexual (not to be confused with celibate, which isn't an orientation but a choice), pansexual, demisexual on the orientation spectrum or transgender, androgyne, neutrois on the gender spectrum and its important for people to be aware of this.
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”

― Brian Cox

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Thu May 14, 2015 8:57 pm

How does this relate to the linguistic paradigm of he/she, in your view?

User avatar
garrethdsouza
Senior Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:47 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan
Location: India

Post by garrethdsouza » Thu May 14, 2015 11:58 pm

I guess that he/she assumes the gender binary while non-binaries may not find the usage applicable. for instance many prefer to be referred to as they instead of the noninclusive binary of he/she .

http://queerdictionary.tumblr.com/post/ ... enderpivot

Facebook too has begun to introduce changes. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/male-female ... ook-users/

http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Gender_Wiki

On a different issue of sexual orientations
Asexuality is commonly confused with voluntarily choosing to not have sex or celibacy. Asexuality on the other hand is an orientation wherein individuals do not experience sexual attraction towards anyone,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/965126 ... exual.html

Variations on it include demisexual, Gray-A etc. http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.ph ... Demisexual
“We are the cosmos made conscious and life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”

― Brian Cox

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2005
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri May 15, 2015 12:48 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:How does this relate to the linguistic paradigm of he/she, in your view?
Some languages, like Mauritian, don't have he and she; just one word for both. In Sweden there has been discussion to get rid of these words (he and she). It definitely makes it easier when writing and talking about a non specific third party. It may also help reduce gender discrimination during employee recruitment discussions.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri May 15, 2015 2:29 am

garrethdsouza wrote:for instance many prefer to be referred to as they instead of the noninclusive binary of he/she .
"They" is a plural pronoun, not singular. I do not consider this usage acceptable and I avoid using it like that. There is already a gender neutral singular pronoun: it. Unfortunately, people find this dehumanizing and are insulted by it.

If somebody wants me to call him or her "it", or call it "it" (if they like), I'm open to that. There's some argument that can be made that the word "it" should be reclaimed as acceptable rather than an insult, just as many words before have been.
We call babies "it", as in "what is it, a boy or a girl?", and constantly refer to them as "it"s before we know the gender.
We also ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, or calling.
I call animals he or she to be deliberately not objectifying them, even if they might object to the gender binary themselves if they knew what I was talking about (although I'm pretty sure caring about that at all is a human convention of [arguably justified] hypersensitivity caused by a long history of cultural prejudices).

I'm not willing to create extremely obtuse grammatical structures in all cases to dance around pronouns entirely, or to say "people", since that implicitly excludes animals.
Likewise, I find it problematic to say something like "that human", because it's weird.

https://www.theveganatheist.com/forum/v ... f=15&t=854

See primarily Jebus' and my replies there.

If I can support Anti-binary-gender activism without compromising vegan activism, I'm on board and quite happy to, as I would expect any anti-binary-gender activist to also at least BE vegan (to not actively support animal cruelty), although I wouldn't expect him her or it to be "in your face" about veganism, particularly if that interfered with his/her/its primary goals as an anti-binary-gender activist.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm

So @Red quoted this post a while back and it came up again in conversation recently and here I am now.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri May 15, 2015 2:29 am
"They" is a plural pronoun, not singular.


This is not true. The rules of language are entirely determined by what most people will use. Most people will use a singular "they" rather than "it" to refer to people of an unspecified gender. This has dated back to the 16th century. In my discussion with Red on 3rd January 2019, he attempted to argue that language is determined by a group of people who he called "language creators" who decide which language is correct and which isn't:

Red: Just because we use them in everyday conversation and not see any problem with it doesn't mean it's grammatically correct
Me: Yes it does.
Red: How so?
Me: That's literally where grammar comes from.
Red: I mean consensus wise, and by the established rules of the language
Me: Who establishes these rules? I didn't vote for them!
Red: I don't know, language is arbitrary with no inherent meaning, But this is a language we all agreed upon using, and, like it or not, we have to abide by the rules. I'm not concerned with private chats like this, but in mainstream discourse, it can be an issue
Me: I never agreed upon using this language, and I do not have to abide by these rules. What's going to happen? Am I going to be sent to a grammar jail? Language constantly evolves, and the fact that things which were once considered grammatically incorrect are now becoming more common means that they are no longer grammatically correct. This isn't something which is voted on in a parliament. This is just a result of tiny, at first unnoticeable, changes that happen over time. That's is the reason we aren't speaking in ye Olde Englishe righte nowe. The fact is, they/them pronouns have been popularly used in a singular context. Ergo, it is grammatically correct to use them in a singular context.
Red: If you're appealing exclusively to the fact of 'that's just how it's used, that'd be a bandwagon fallacy
Me: That's literally how language works though. It's not ad populum to say "This constituency will have a Conservative MP because the majority of people voted for them".
Red: Yes but you can't just say that it's right because most people use it. Language generally evolving like this is as arbitrary as the language creators you were critiquing before. We can't just keep creating our own rules and definitions, otherwise the language would be rendered useless, especially in discourse where it's necessary. OK I really need to jack off so be right back.
Me: I never criticised your "language creators" for being arbitrary. I criticised them for being nonexistent. Besides, why would language be rendered useless by us creating our own rules and definitions, but not by an imaginary oligarchy of "language creators" creating them? This is just how language works. The fact is, words have changed over time. This doesn't render language useless, it just means that it is constantly shifting and evolving. The meanings of words don't change because a group of language creators sit in some room filled with smoke and mirrors and vote on whether to change them or not. That's ridiculous. They change because the majority of those in society change them by constantly using them in different ways to how they have been previously used. To say that there is a small group of all-sovereign people who decide how language is used is almost as ridiculous as to say that there is an all-sovereign God who dictates what is moral and how the universe functions.
Red:If language is created by our own rules and definitions then apple mouse cabinet kite hammer stage
Me: Well, that last part of your sentence completely goes against what I was saying. I was saying that language is determined by a value consensus. If most people were able to understand what "apple mouse cabinet kite hammer stage" meant, then it would be grammatically correct. Your belief that language is determined by some fabled "language creators" isn't any less ludicrous, as it would mean that overnight, your statement could become grammatically correct if they all just decided "Hey! You know what would be fun! If we changed the definition of apple to I, mouse to want, cabinet to to, kite to kill, hammer to myself and stage to now!". Who are these language creators anyway? Do you even know?
Red:No one knows who the language creators are, just like no one knows who wrote the Bible
Me: Well, firstly, we do know who wrote most of the different books of the Bible. Secondly, if nobody knows who the language creators are, what can falsify their existence?
Red:Firstly, no. Secondly, it was obviously other humans
Me: Obviously other humans who did what?
Red: Who created the language
Me: Well, if we don't know who they are, how do we know that they exist at all? What would falsify your belief that language is determined by a small group of language creators?
Red:When did I say it was a small group of people?
Me: Well, it's clearly at the very least smaller than the group of people who I believe determine language (everybody). Regardless, its size is irrelevant and you are veering off of the subject. What would falsify their existence?
Red:Why would that be necessary?
Me: Because of Popper's falsification principle. Same reason why Jebus needs to articulate what would falsify his belief that there are people other than myself, you and him actively viewing our senate thread.
Red: How is what I said unfalsifiable?
Me: I never said it was. I just asked what would falsify it. And you haven't given me an answer.
Red: Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean there isn't one
Plus, where else would the language come from?
Me: Are you trolling?
Red: I think you are
Me: Honest question "I know you are, but what am I?"
Red: A troll
Me: That's playground talk, Red. Are you saying that something could falsify your belief in language creators, but you don't know what that thing is? (I'm not going to answer your question of "where else would the language come from?" because I've already answered this).
Red: where else would the language come from?
Me: All humans who speak the language in question. I've already said this. Now answer the damn question and stop trying to change the subject.
Red: I dont know who the language creators are. Like we don't know who brimstone is. Or the writers of the Bible.
Me: That isn't an answer to the question I asked you. I did not ask you who the language creators were. Would you like me to repeat the question I asked you?
Red: then what was it?
Me: Are you saying that something could falsify your belief in language creators, but you don't know what that thing is?
Red: No?
Me: Then what could falsify your belief in language creators?
Red: Nothing
Me: Then it is unfalsifiable.
Red: Prove it
Me: Okay, you're trolling. Nice one, you got me.
Red: look i dont lke live debates im sotting on my hsand

So this debate came up today, and Red maintained his position so here I am now posting on this thread so that he can defend his position here since he prefers to debate on the forum than on discord.
I do not consider this usage acceptable and I avoid using it like that.
But you did use it like that:
If somebody wants me to call him or her "it", or call it "it" (if they like), I'm open to that.
There is already a gender neutral singular pronoun: it. Unfortunately, people find this dehumanizing and are insulted by it.
That's because the term "it" is usually used to refer to things that aren't human, or to dehumanise people.
We call babies "it", as in "what is it, a boy or a girl?", and constantly refer to them as "it"s before we know the gender.
We also ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, or calling.
Those are the exception, and not the rule. For instance, you may ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, but what is your next response most likely to be?:

Response A
Tom: Who is it?
Gary: It's a police officer!
Tom: Tell them that whoever they say I've murdered, I didn't murder them!

Response B
Tom: Who is it?
Gary: It's a police officer!
Tom: Tell it that whoever it says I've murdered, I didn't murder it!
Likewise, I find it problematic to say something like "that human", because it's weird.
So is calling them "it".

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:28 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
This is not true. The rules of language are entirely determined by what most people will use.
Not exactly, there are degrees of formality. Using "they" particularly in writing, is still frowned upon in academics and by editors, as well as well-read readers. See style guides, and the apparent consensus among grammarians who admit its informality.
It's awkward. It may not always be so, but I'm not convinced that's a good thing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
But you did use it like that:
If somebody wants me to call him or her "it", or call it "it" (if they like), I'm open to that.
I'm sure you can find many more grammatical mistakes in my writing than that. I occasionally mix up or mess up. You'll find I usually use he/she or phrase things in the plural.

I should have said "If people want me to call them "it""..."
Though frankly we probably need a new word that doesn't create that ambiguity. I don't want to be unable to tell, in writing, if somebody is referring to multiple people or not (context is not always reliable). Language can lose specificity that way.

I would prefer Ze, Zim and Zis if those also weren't very weird right now.

The number of people, particularly adults, desiring to be neither male nor female is extremely small. I think you'll find the vast majority cluster around two gender norms or have a preference and gender identity that is either male or female in pronoun.

My concerns are:
1. It looking bad, formally and in writing.
2. Losing the implication that "they" is plural, which is a loss of ability to communicate efficiently to some degree (much like "literally" no longer meaning literally).
3. The alternative (Ze,Zim,Zis) still being really weird.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
We call babies "it", as in "what is it, a boy or a girl?", and constantly refer to them as "it"s before we know the gender.
We also ask "Who is it?" when somebody is at the door, or calling.
Those are the exception, and not the rule.
Perhaps it should become the rule.
Either that, or an alternative just needs to become more popular. Or maybe we need a new world for plural.

In any case, it's a fringe issue of a fringe issue.
There are probably only dozens of people who actually feel this way for more than a few months. Most people probably only prefer this while in a state of gender confusion which will settle into being cis or trans eventually. There's also an argument that all of these alternative gender identities, otherkin, etc. actually work to discredit the trans-rights movement by lumping it in with something that the general public considers absurd. We could be talking about harming the progress for the rights of millions for the sake of a very small few who will probably only end up using he or she eventually.

I'd like to see research that points to it actually being an issue before making awkward and informal English the norm formally, or adopting a weird word, or potentially supporting something that harms trans rights, etc.

Bottom line: very small issue until shown to be otherwise. Outweighed by the awkwardness and poor optics in formal writing and potentially the loss of information/communication ability, and speculatively even harmful to the rights progress of a much larger number of people.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:56 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:28 am
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
This is not true. The rules of language are entirely determined by what most people will use.
Not exactly, there are degrees of formality. Using "they" particularly in writing, is still frowned upon in academics and by editors, as well as well-read readers. See style guides, and the apparent consensus among grammarians who admit its informality.
It's awkward. It may not always be so, but I'm not convinced that's a good thing.
I don't really see the opinion of academics as important when it comes to something like grammar. Grammar is a social construction created by humans, and because of that, it should really be determined by how the general public use it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
I should have said "If people want me to call them "it""..."
Though frankly we probably need a new word that doesn't create that ambiguity. I don't want to be unable to tell, in writing, if somebody is referring to multiple people or not (context is not always reliable). Language can lose specificity that way.

I would prefer Ze, Zim and Zis if those also weren't very weird right now.
If somebody had Ze/Zim/Zis as their preferred pronouns, I would use those. However, when referring to people of an unspecified gender such as in the example of answering the door, it would be unnecessary to refer to them like that when a perfectly good pronoun already exists. This is unlikely to create confusion in writing about whether there is multiple people or not, as the writer will usually make this clear, for example:

"John was annoyed by his neighbour. They kept playing their music too loud." indicates one person.

"John was annoyed by his neighbours. They kept playing their music too loud." indicates multiple people.

I don't really understand what you mean when you say that context is not always reliable.
The number of people, particularly adults, desiring to be neither male nor female is extremely small. I think you'll find the vast majority cluster around two gender norms or have a preference and gender identity that is either male or female in pronoun.
The percentage of trans people who consider themselves nonbinary, according to a survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality which studied nearly 28,000 people living in the United States, is 35%. By contrast, 33% identify as trans women and 29% identify as trans men with the remaining 3% identifying as crossdressers.

Now, in regards to pronouns, only 29% of those surveyed use they/them pronouns. Other nonbinary people may fall into the categories of using pronouns like ze (6% indicated that they use pronouns besides he, she or they), using all pronouns, using no pronouns (4% surveyed responded with this), or not asking people to use specific pronouns when referring to them (20% of those surveyed responded with this). It is likely to be the latter as only 3% of nonbinary people surveyed responded that they always tell others that they are nonbinary and 44% stated that they usually let others assume that they are a man or a woman.

So, the percentage of the general public who are nonbinary or use gender neutral pronouns is very small. However, the percentage of trans people who are nonbinary is larger than the percentage who are trans men and the percentage that are trans women, and the percentage of trans people who use gender neutral pronouns (35%) is only slightly smaller than the percentage who use male pronouns (37%) and the percentage who use female pronouns (also 37%).

The survey can be found here (for the relevant bits, start reading at page 44): https://transequality.org/sites/default ... -Dec17.pdf

However, I don't actually think that this is that relevant when talking about they/them as a singular pronoun. Even if every single person on the planet went by "he" or "she", having "they" as a singular pronoun is still helpful when talking about people whose gender we aren't aware of.
My concerns are:
1. It looking bad, formally and in writing.
I don't think it does. It looks good to most people, as most people use it, and alternatives can make the writing look rather clunky.
2. Losing the implication that "they" is plural, which is a loss of ability to communicate efficiently to some degree (much like "literally" no longer meaning literally).
I'll reiterate that I do not believe that losing the implication that "they/them" is plural will lose the ability to communicate efficiently to some degree. I don't believe that this is the case with "literally" either, as there actually are alternatives that work very well, such as "genuinely". However, to be honest, none of those sorts of words are really necessary. I had a friend who whenever he didn't know the answer to a question somebody asked him, he would say "I genuinely don't know". This became the subject of banter amongst people who joked about the idea that we might be doubting that he didn't know, and would be convinced by him saying that his doubt was genuine.
3. The alternative (Ze,Zim,Zis) still being really weird.
I don't disagree here, but if you really do have a problem with using they/them/their and wouldn't mind if people used ze/zim/zis, then I would encourage you to be the change that you want to see in the world.
Perhaps it should become the rule.
Either that, or an alternative just needs to become more popular. Or maybe we need a new world for plural.
You can try out either of the latter two options (I would encourage you not to do the first because even though it is considered no less "weird", it is considered much more dehumanising) in an effort to make them more popular, but I hardly think its necessary for the reasons I've outlined.
In any case, it's a fringe issue of a fringe issue.
There are probably only dozens of people who actually feel this way for more than a few months. Most people probably only prefer this while in a state of gender confusion which will settle into being cis or trans eventually.
There's not really any evidence for that besides a subjective assessment of probability. I think most nonbinary people have already considered this idea, hence the fact that 63% of those surveyed who wouldn't tell people about their nonbinary identity listed their reason as "Most people dismiss it as not being a real identity or a 'phase'".
There's also an argument that all of these alternative gender identities, otherkin, etc. actually work to discredit the trans-rights movement by lumping it in with something that the general public considers absurd. We could be talking about harming the progress for the rights of millions for the sake of a very small few who will probably only end up using he or she eventually.
I don't think that this is likely to be the case. Homosexuals, bisexuals and trans people have often been lumped together, hence the acronym "LGBT", and yet the position of homosexuals and bisexuals has advanced much more than the position of trans people despite this. If you're going to make the argument that it's harmful to trans men and trans women to have them lumped in with nonbinary people, then you can also make the argument that it's harmful to homosexuals and bisexuals to have them lumped in with trans people. You could also make the argument that it's harmful to homosexuals to have them lumped in with bisexuals. In my experience, people are able to understand what both "gay" and "straight" mean but need you to explain it to them when you express that you're attracted to men and women.

However, I don't think that either of us are really qualified to state what will help trans people and what won't. I think that trans people know what's best for them and every trans person I have spoken to, and the vast majority of those I know of, state that the cause of nonbinary people needs to be advanced.
I'd like to see research that points to it actually being an issue before making awkward and informal English the norm formally, or adopting a weird word, or potentially supporting something that harms trans rights, etc.
I'd need to see some research that points to nonbinary identity being a phase before I decide to ignore a group which is larger than the number of trans men or trans women. As well as that, as I've pointed out, even if there was not a single nonbinary person on the planet, it would still be useful to have they/them as a singular pronoun.

Okay I need the toilet now.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:34 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:56 am
I don't really see the opinion of academics as important when it comes to something like grammar. Grammar is a social construction created by humans, and because of that, it should really be determined by how the general public use it.
Academics *do* take that into account, but there are other factors too that are important to semantics.

Consider the innate cultural harm of linguistic drift: it can cause older works of literature, or scientific works, to become less accessible and comprehensible to the general public. Think how it's harder to understand Shakespeare today, and how Chaucer is basically impossible to understand.

Regardless of the loss of cultural capital, *misuse* of words can also have innate harm by increasing the ambiguity of a language. Bad grammar isn't always just subjectively bad, but can actually be less productive.

We do not benefit by not teaching grammar at all and letting language devolve into near-gibberish.

That said, there are of course issues in English we'd probably befit from fixing that wouldn't cause a lot of confusion, but that's a complicated question.

There needs to be a linguistically conservative force that pushes for retaining certain rules and structures in language. Words should have roughly the same meaning today as they do in a couple decades, and if they don't we're losing something.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
This is unlikely to create confusion in writing about whether there is multiple people or not, as the writer will usually make this clear, for example:
IF it's made clear that's arguably fine, but that's not always the case. Sometimes ambiguity can be created by accident too.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
I don't really understand what you mean when you say that context is not always reliable.
You can't always rely on context, since it doesn't always indicate what you need to know.

"John was annoyed by his fish. They kept playing their music too loud."

or...

"Speaking of neighbors, John was annoyed by his. They kept playing their music too loud."

"John has roommate problems, they keep playing their music too loud."

Singular or plural? You don't know. You can't know from that context.
You won't always even get a context that can potentially reveal the number of subjects you're talking about.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
The percentage of trans people who consider themselves nonbinary, according to a survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality which studied nearly 28,000 people living in the United States, is 35%. By contrast, 33% identify as trans women and 29% identify as trans men with the remaining 3% identifying as crossdressers.
That seems very unlikely to be an accurate result. Surveys can be pretty easily slanted by the wording, and it also doesn't really say how many people are distressed or even bothered by being called a him or her.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
using no pronouns (4% surveyed responded with this)
Do you think this is remotely reasonable to ask people to not use pronouns at all when referring to you?
Anybody who does that is either just profoundly ignorant of how difficult that would be for people, or an asshole (doesn't care how difficult it is for others, just wants special treatment for no good reason... or is *so* distressed by a normal part of English that he or she is in serious need of therapy and may need to be committed).

It's this slippery slope thing that makes even transexuality look absurd when it's associated with it. That's a problem. It gives conservatives ammunition. How about when people start asking to be referred to in the plural because they identify as royal we?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
So, the percentage of the general public who are nonbinary or use gender neutral pronouns is very small. However, the percentage of trans people who are nonbinary is larger than the percentage who are trans men and the percentage that are trans women
Really no reason to believe that when there has been no adjustment for stage.
If somebody just started thinking about whether he or she identifies as male or female, a phase of gender confusion and questioning is very natural and should be expected.

It makes a lot of sense that a transwoman or transman would feel uncomfortable with being referred to as her or his original cisgender pronoun, but may not have fully realized or come to terms with her or his transexuality yet.
A good analogy would probably be to gay men or women experimenting with or identifying as bisexual before coming to terms with being homosexual.
I'm not saying long term bisexuals don't exist, but it's very hard to determine they do with a survey when it's so commonly used as a stepping stone or a phase of experimentation.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
having "they" as a singular pronoun is still helpful when talking about people whose gender we aren't aware of.
Sometimes it's a little easier informally, thus its prevalence. But doing so can also be confusing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
I don't disagree here, but if you really do have a problem with using they/them/their and wouldn't mind if people used ze/zim/zis, then I would encourage you to be the change that you want to see in the world.
It's a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. I'm not an intersectionalist who thinks *all* causes must be advocated equally (and impossibly) side by side. I'm more concerned with the *survival* of the majority of the human race than the possibility of making a fraction of a percentage slightly uncomfortable. Using ze/zim/zis could harm my ability to do the former in order to avoid the latter. I don't want to look so silly that more important advocacy can be dismissed.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:49 pm
I think most nonbinary people have already considered this idea, hence the fact that 63% of those surveyed who wouldn't tell people about their nonbinary identity listed their reason as "Most people dismiss it as not being a real identity or a 'phase'".
I think until evidence comes in that it's not just a phase for most people, that's not really that unreasonable.
I don't doubt that there are some people who feel this way long term, but a better option might just be therapy to help them cope with a binary world.
The same thing can solve gender dysphoria, but it can take decades and the treatment (HRT) is just waaay easier and saves suffering for decades. Path of least resistance.

People who feel non-binary can try to change things, and that's their prerogative, but I don't think it's really something that pressing for humanity right now when we're dealing with much larger issues OR the path of least resistance.

In a world of pure justice we might be able to get rid of gender identity entirely and only have a neutral pronoun, but as it stands I think a more reasonable approach is to just break down the stereotypes. Men can be feminine and women can be masculine. A pronoun can become just that; a meaningless sound, chose which you prefer because there's no impetus for you to be more masculine or feminine or fit gender roles IF they're broadened enough.

Given that, it seems the pragmatic ideal is more not to care what pronoun people use because it doesn't really mean anything...

Anyway, no time to respond to the rest now... maybe more evidence will come out later. Your point that nobody knows? Sure, but then on what basis is the call for anybody to deviate from existing language made?

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Feb 20, 2019 4:59 am

@brimstoneSalad I have wrote a response. I will post it along with my response to your second post when said post is posted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests