Colorado club shooter is non-binary, CNN repeatedly misgenders them.

[Jarhyn]

Of course I did. You responded to my answer. My answer was:

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

That's why I think the State (and societies) segregated by sex. And instead of saying 'thank you for answering my question', you said 'you can't derive an ought from an is', as if I had tried to do that

Except that is not a reason. You have not actually supplied one. "They do this" does not make any justification of WHY.

WHY do you think this any kind of segregation in "confined or intimate space" is "expected". It's that expectation that you have to justify and expound on.

The "is" does not inform "ought".

When I make an argument from tradition, you let me know

I highlighted it in red. Your use of "this is currently what people do" does not justify "what people currently are doing".

That is what an argument from tradition is.

Of course it is germane. Asking why prisons were segregated...

Yes, asking WHY they were segregated gets to the heart of the matter. A matter that you have not addressed.

The issue is that I am damn sure you know what happens when you describe actual, justified reasons: people will realize they can target those concerns without discussing "sex" directly at all.

You wish to justify the use of a bad proxy, a proxy which as we are discovering has ALWAYS been bad, to justify segregation by sex rather than the actual target concerns: muscle mass, predelictions to violence, and pregnancy risk.

One does not need to declare that people have a "sex" to house someone with similar muscle mass, predelictions to violence, or pregnancy risk.

males are larger and more violent than females

Ah, Sex Essentialism at its finest!

I would not agree with this statement. Some men are larger than some women. Some women are larger than some men.

Some men are more violent than women. Some women are more violent than men.

The only time I have ever witnessed a public assault by people in a relationship, it was someone who I'm sure you would classify as a woman beating on someone I'm sure you would classify as a man, and when I told them to knock that shit off, the instigator threatened me. For the record, the instigator was probably twice my weight.

Then the last time I witnessed a mugging two of the muggers were again people I'm pretty sure you would classify as women.

So your argument that we should separate "men" from "women" makes a lot of problems.

You offered one reason and it's basis is untrue.

None of those differences means there is not a binary

Yes, it does mean there is not a binary. There is a bimodal distribution, with a number of different minutiae, but this is not what is meant by "binary" at this level of discussion.

As it is, some humans produce both. A binary is two. Between two variables, there are four combinations.

I did not say nature had a purpose.

Yes you did: "You... have a body organised around..."

"To be organized around something" is to say that the nature of the biology has "a purpose relating to..."

The body does not organize around the gamete, the body organizes according to the chemistry that builds it, no more and no less. It just tends to be the case that when the individual developments all happen in some particular way for each, the system works in such a way that it can reproduce.

The organization does not happen knowing what it is pursuant to, it organizes on the basis of what part is coming together.

It does not happen because there is an egg producing machine, it happens because there is a chemical exposure, no more and no less. Anything more is reading purpose in when there is none.

Mammals cannot change sex

Mammals in fact do not have a binary "sex".

There are two gamete types, and only two

And yet there are people whose bodies produce sperms whom you would call "woman".

Let's try this again:
A is a member of {0,1} (this is a binary)
B is a member of {00, 01, 10, 11} (this is two binaries, so a quaternary).

So even if I just were to define "sex" as "produces sperms"; "produces eggs", "sex" is not a binary it is a quaternary, insofar as there are four different "sexes" observable.

when we get further into it we realize there is a third column to the differentiation: hormones. Oops, suddenly that's 8 different "sexes".

And then if you start looking at brain differentiations and secondary developmental characteristics, suddenly you are at 16, 32, 64, and that's assuming that the brain differentiations are only binary, not trinary, or quaternary or more!

The thing about "sex" is that it's a bad generalization about a collection of minutiae.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course I did. You responded to my answer. My answer was:

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

That's why I think the State (and societies) segregated by sex. And instead of saying 'thank you for answering my question', you said 'you can't derive an ought from an is', as if I had tried to do that

Except that is not a reason.

The reason is there. The sexes are separated where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected, so as to avoid the problem associated with mixing the sexes where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected.

Below, I am deleting all your endlessly repeated claims that I am attempting to make an ought from an is.

Yes, asking WHY they were segregated gets to the heart of the matter. A matter that you have not addressed.

The issue is that I am damn sure you know what happens when you describe actual, justified reasons: people will realize they can target those concerns without discussing "sex" directly at all.

Whether those concerns can be targeted without discussing sex directly at all begs the question. You are assuming that using sex directly is an inferior method. You have not established that.

You wish to justify the use of a bad proxy, a proxy which as we are discovering has ALWAYS been bad, to justify segregation by sex rather than the actual target concerns: muscle mass, predelictions to violence, and pregnancy risk.

Those are some of the concerns. They are not all of them. There is also the psychological comfort of women, for example.

One does not need to declare that people have a "sex" to house someone with similar muscle mass, predelictions to violence, or pregnancy risk.

There is nothing wrong with declaring people have a sex, because people do have a sex. In fact, in most societies, your sex is observed and recorded at birth, and sometimes before birth.

males are larger and more violent than females

Ah, Sex Essentialism at its finest!

I would not agree with this statement. Some men are larger than some women. Some women are larger than some men.

Men are taller than women. It's a statement about populations. The statement is true.

Some men are more violent than women. Some women are more violent than men.

The only time I have ever witnessed a public assault by people in a relationship, it was someone who I'm sure you would classify as a woman beating on someone I'm sure you would classify as a man, and when I told them to knock that shit off, the instigator threatened me. For the record, the instigator was probably twice my weight.

Psychotic women, often when drugs are involved, are not a new phenomenon. I take public transport. I've seen my fair share.

Then the last time I witnessed a mugging two of the muggers were again people I'm pretty sure you would classify as women.

So your argument that we should separate "men" from "women" makes a lot of problems.

No. It reduces problems. It does not take away all interpersonal violence, and neither would what you are proposing. Separating by sex saves women from all the interpersonal violence men could visit upon them, and all the interpersonal violence women could visit upon men.

You offered one reason and it's basis is untrue.

None of those differences means there is not a binary

Yes, it does mean there is not a binary. There is a bimodal distribution, with a number of different minutiae, but this is not what is meant by "binary" at this level of discussion.

As it is, some humans produce both. A binary is two. Between two variables, there are four combinations.

Jarhyn, there are two sexes, based on two gametes. There are two reproductive strategies in mammals.

I did not say nature had a purpose.

Yes you did: "You... have a body organised around..."

"To be organized around something" is to say that the nature of the biology has "a purpose relating to..."

No, it's not. It means it's the body that gets made when the reproductive strategy defaults to large, sessile gametes.

I used the passive voice precisely because there is nobody arranging things. It just happens because bodies evolved that way.

The body does not organize around the gamete, the body organizes according to the chemistry that builds it, no more and no less. It just tends to be the case that when the individual developments all happen in some particular way for each, the system works in such a way that it can reproduce.

The organization does not happen knowing what it is pursuant to, it organizes on the basis of what part is coming together.

It does not happen because there is an egg producing machine, it happens because there is a chemical exposure, no more and no less. Anything more is reading purpose in when there is none.

You are reading "purpose" into my words. What I said is no different to "the circulatory system is organised around arteries taking blood away from the heart and veins bringing blood back".

Mammals cannot change sex

Mammals in fact do not have a binary "sex".

Yes, they do.

There are two gamete types, and only two

And yet there are people whose bodies produce sperms whom you would call "woman".

If the body was organised around the production of large, sessile gametes, I would call such a person a woman.

Let's try this again:
A is a member of {0,1} (this is a binary)
B is a member of {00, 01, 10, 11} (this is two binaries, so a quaternary).

So even if I just were to define "sex" as "produces sperms"; "produces eggs", "sex" is not a binary it is a quaternary, insofar as there are four different "sexes" observable.

No, that is not how I defined sex. You can see I didn't because I wrote up my definition many times for you.

when we get further into it we realize there is a third column to the differentiation: hormones. Oops, suddenly that's 8 different "sexes".

No. I did not include 'hormones' in my definition and you can't slip them in there and pretend I did.

And then if you start looking at brain differentiations and secondary developmental characteristics, suddenly you are at 16, 32, 64, and that's assuming that the brain differentiations are only binary, not trinary, or quaternary or more!

The thing about "sex" is that it's a bad generalization about a collection of minutiae.

Sex is an extraordinarily good generalisation, in particular for the purposes we already use it for (making sporting fair for women, separating women from people who could rape and impregnate them, etc).

You appear attached to expunging the primary definition of woman - adult human female. Good luck with that.

 

[Jarhyn]

The sexes are separated where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected,

That's an "is". You canlr get an "ought" from it.

so as to avoid the problem associated with mixing the sexes where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

And what problem is that pray tell?

That's what I keep asking you to elaborate on.

The thing is, I have already described those problems, and how they may be averred without segregating by "sex".

But you haven't even gone that far... You could potentially get an "ought" from that were you to describe the actual problem rather than making such a vague and unsupported claim.

You are assuming that using sex directly is an inferior method

Sex is not real. Sex is an approximation of a large collection of minutiae, a gross oversimplification born of an inability or a lack of opportunity to observe a break in comorbidity of them, despite the reality of such failures of comorbidity.

Using fuzzy proxy is bad because as I have mentioned in a number of other threads, such oversimplifications lead to shit like the one which sparked this debate in the first place.

There is also the psychological comfort of women, for example

So the actual "mere" thoughts in some people's heads just matter more than the supposed "mere thoughts" in the heads of others.

I expect that there would be a lot more psychological comfort if NO prisoner had to deal with being housed with what you would declare as "men".

What I said is no different to "the circulatory system is organised around arteries taking blood away from the heart and veins bringing blood back".

Except that it is not. Most circulatory systems happen to have arteries, but they are not organized that way.

Circulatory systems are organized by rate dependent chemistry that cause the differentiation of cells.

Which is to say, what you said is no different from <a statement that is vastly not-even-wrong>.

"Sex" is not real. It is an approximate attempt to classify something that is real, I'll grant, but as I keep pointing out, it's just that: a flimsy approximation.

 

[Metaphor]

And what problem is that pray tell?

I've already listed some of them a number of times. I'm not going to do it again.

That's what I keep asking you to elaborate on.

The thing is, I have already described those problems, and how they may be averred without segregating by "sex".

No. You have described two of the issues that you think are 'legitimate'.

You are also begging the question as to why your sex-related approach (without using that category you find so uncomfortable for some reason) is "better". You have not made the case that it is better.

You are assuming that using sex directly is an inferior method

Sex is not real.

I've had the after-dinner mint, and now I'm in the car leaving the restaurant parking lot.

*Waves goodbye*

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what is an XXY person? What's an XYY person? What's a female-appearing XY person? What's an approximately-female XY person that develops a penis at puberty?

Oy gevalt. The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary. There are two sexes because there are two gamete types. There is no third gamete type.

Two gamete types doesn't mean only two manifestations. I gave you a couple of cases that don't match your pattern.

Not to mention the one I just ran into today--woman comes back as her child's uncle. The ready availability of genetic testing is revealing a lot of cases that things aren't as plain and simple as they look.

And babies don't have boobs, either.

I have seen some fat babies.

Which doesn't address my point.

Does that mean none can be female? The system can be there but dormant.

Oy gevalt. Some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards cancer. That doesn't mean they have cancer when they are born.

All I claimed was that babies are not born gay because babies don't have a sexual orientation.

The amount of pushback and resistance against this obvious statement beggars belief.

The problem is that you are taking that to mean sexual orientation happens later and we are saying that just because it hasn't manifested yet doesn't mean it's not determined yet. You have the gene for Huntington's, nobody can say exactly when it will strike but there's no question it will. Is it not present????

Yeah, "they" is one of those oddball words that is both singular and plural. Blame English for this problem--it long predates the trans movement. (Or blame English for having separate singular/plural versions. Chinese doesn't suffer for the lack of word modification, it's not a necessary feature for a language to have. (But native Chinese speakers do suffer for it when trying to learn languages that do modify words. On the other hand, we suffer from it when trying to learn languages that have more forms or different forms than we do.)

And nouns and pronouns in Turkish don't have gender at all. I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong. Instead of saying "yes, it can introduce ambiguities but the price is acceptable and people will need to be more careful", Jarhyn implied anybody who was confused had a reading level of grade 5 or below.

People who speak such languages don't have a problem with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that the they as a singular does sound awkward when we aren't in the habit of using it, but I'm trying to adapt. I don't want to offend anyone who is harmless and simply identifies as a member of a minority gender. I don't need to understand their identity to be respectful.

We've always had a singular "they/them". It's what you use when referring to a person whose gender is unknown.

 

[Metaphor]

So what is an XXY person? What's an XYY person? What's a female-appearing XY person? What's an approximately-female XY person that develops a penis at puberty?

Oy gevalt. The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary. There are two sexes because there are two gamete types. There is no third gamete type.

Two gamete types doesn't mean only two manifestations. I gave you a couple of cases that don't match your pattern.

Chromosomal variations do not create new sexes. Hormonal variations do not create new sexes.

There are two, and only two, gamete types, in humans. There is no third gamete type.

And, there are bodies organised around the production of small motile gametes (what we call boys or men) and bodies that are not so organised (girls or women).

The problem is that you are taking that to mean sexual orientation happens later and we are saying that just because it hasn't manifested yet doesn't mean it's not determined yet.

I did not say it wasn't determined yet. It may be determined in utero. It might still be free to vary according to environment.

You have the gene for Huntington's, nobody can say exactly when it will strike but there's no question it will. Is it not present????

Tell me, do doctors look at this gene and say 'this baby has Huntington's disease' or do they say 'this baby will grow up and inevitably get Huntington's disease'?

I am not a free-will libertarian. I agree that there might be babies whose genetics and in-utero environment are sufficient to cause them to develop into gay youth. That does not mean they were 'born gay'.

There are also babies whose genetics and in-utero environment might allow a child to develop into a gay youth, depending on environmental circumstances. Even under your criterion for being 'born gay', such a child does not count.

Yeah, "they" is one of those oddball words that is both singular and plural. Blame English for this problem--it long predates the trans movement. (Or blame English for having separate singular/plural versions. Chinese doesn't suffer for the lack of word modification, it's not a necessary feature for a language to have. (But native Chinese speakers do suffer for it when trying to learn languages that do modify words. On the other hand, we suffer from it when trying to learn languages that have more forms or different forms than we do.)

And nouns and pronouns in Turkish don't have gender at all. I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong. Instead of saying "yes, it can introduce ambiguities but the price is acceptable and people will need to be more careful", Jarhyn implied anybody who was confused had a reading level of grade 5 or below.

People who speak such languages don't have a problem with it.

I am not saying Turkish people have a problem with their own language. I am saying singular 'they' in English leads to unavoidable ambiguities, even for native English speakers.

Singular 'they' will present additional problems for people with language disorders and non-native speakers of English. It's one thing to say 'the price is worth it'. It's another to dismiss the existence of the problem.

 

[TomC]

And what problem is that pray tell?

That's what I keep asking you to elaborate on

I find it hard to believe that you are so unfamiliar with American culture that you don't understand that.

Then you start deriving a bunch of "ought" from your personal preferences, as though the rest of society ought to do things that suit you.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

And what problem is that pray tell?

That's what I keep asking you to elaborate on

I find it hard to believe that you are so unfamiliar with American culture that you don't understand that.

Then you start deriving a bunch of "ought" from your personal preferences, as though the rest of society ought to do things that suit you.
Tom

The only "ought" I operate on is "all discrimination by the state must be founded on an articulable purpose."

If you cannot articulate the purpose, it does not exist for the state. It must be compelling, and specifically limited to those purposes.

The people clutching pearls about "men", "women", "male", "female", and trying to proclaim them as more important than the compelling and specific interests of the state defeat the compelling and specific interests of the state.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've already listed some of them a number of times. I'm not going to do it again

No, you really didn't. You stop investigating just as soon as the generalizations yielded by investigation seem to agree with you, because you know the moment that investigation of the phenomena goes deeper than that, you lose the leverage that an oversimplified 7th grade biology level of understanding would offer were it any more than an approximation.

This has been ever the problem: folks pretending their ignorance is the equal of informed scientific thought.

Then, after your contributions to the COVID thread, I would expect nothing less from you, Metaphor.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm struck by the inability of some to understand that if someone wants to claim that the concerns of those they deem "women" apply to more than specifically "the ability to ejaculate sperms" and "testosterone exposure" then they are claiming that there is something above the neckline which is also a part of the equation.

It's saying something not about the genitals but about the brain is in some way "sexed" if removal of glands which produce both sperms and testosterone are still insufficient to the consideration.

I have a coworker who has neither ovaries nor uterus, and who I am fairly sure Metaphor would call a woman.

They have never produced their own estrogen.

Their body is, even in Metaphor's not-even-wrong understanding, most certainly not in any way "organized" such that it could support a pregnancy, or even the creation of eggs or estrogen.

They are absolutely in their self-image a "woman".

I acknowledge that they are a woman.

I acknowledge it because that is the self-image they share, their brain as it were.

We can absolutely let people self-assign social roles and self-image, and pay respect to that in a social sense while segregating where necessary on different criterion than the ones we use for social applications.

 

[senor boogie woogie]

I agree that the they as a singular does sound awkward when we aren't in the habit of using it, but I'm trying to adapt. I don't want to offend anyone who is harmless and simply identifies as a member of a minority gender. I don't need to understand their identity to be respectful.

On the other hand, nonbinary folks need to be patient with people, as cultural changes come slowly, even when people are open to change. I've visited some social media sites for those who identify as nonbinary and most said that the pronouns weren't that big of a deal to them. While most preferred they, most were fine with being identified by the gender that they appeared to be. Good for them.

It's more important how you treat a person, even if you're not always using the correct gender pronoun. I have a friend who's 19 year old daughter recently came out as nonbinary. My friend is as progressive as one can be, but she told me she was having trouble always using the they pronoun for her daughter. Hopefully, her daughter will be patient with her mom, but she is 19. She's lucky to have such a caring, accepting mother as my friend. Her mother accepts her/their new identity regardless of how she refers to her/them.

Maybe some of the lesser known pronouns used to identify nonbinary folks will eventually become mainstream and this they/them confusion will end. I think there are a lot more important things for people to worry about, considering what's happening in the world.

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

 

[Jarhyn]

3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she)

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree that the they as a singular does sound awkward when we aren't in the habit of using it, but I'm trying to adapt. I don't want to offend anyone who is harmless and simply identifies as a member of a minority gender. I don't need to understand their identity to be respectful.

On the other hand, nonbinary folks need to be patient with people, as cultural changes come slowly, even when people are open to change. I've visited some social media sites for those who identify as nonbinary and most said that the pronouns weren't that big of a deal to them. While most preferred they, most were fine with being identified by the gender that they appeared to be. Good for them.

It's more important how you treat a person, even if you're not always using the correct gender pronoun. I have a friend who's 19 year old daughter recently came out as nonbinary. My friend is as progressive as one can be, but she told me she was having trouble always using the they pronoun for her daughter. Hopefully, her daughter will be patient with her mom, but she is 19. She's lucky to have such a caring, accepting mother as my friend. Her mother accepts her/their new identity regardless of how she refers to her/them.

Maybe some of the lesser known pronouns used to identify nonbinary folks will eventually become mainstream and this they/them confusion will end. I think there are a lot more important things for people to worry about, considering what's happening in the world.

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

I find your reply to be unfairly judemental. I was ignorant that this usage has been around for quite awhile until I learned more about it. Just because some of us aren't familiar with the history of some of these minority genders, doesn't mean they haven't existed for a long time. Language changes all the time. Go read some Chaucer for an example of how different modern English is from English back in those days. New words pop up all the time. American usage is different from British usage. Slang changes all the time. It's not too late to open your mind and learn. It will take time for this to sound "normal", but there's no reason to judge people simply because we don't understand them.

Do some younger people go through a phase where they mistakenly identify themselves as a minority gender? Absolutely! But, from what I've read, that's very rare. Most children know what gender they identify as during childhood, just like most gay folks realize they are attracted to the same sex by the time they reach puberty. Gender is more complicated than some realize.

 

[Toni]

I've used 'they' for as long as I can remember, including here on this board. I've never found it awkward and I don't recall anyone ever expressing confusion or political outrage when I did so. I am neither that smart nor that creative or unusual. In fact, such usage is so common it is easily found in the online Oxford dictionary:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

they

/T͟Hā/

pronoun

pronoun: they

1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

"the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted"

people in general.

"the rest, as they say, is history"

INFORMAL

a group of people in authority regarded collectively.

"they cut my water off"

2. used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.

"ask someone if they could help"

used to refer to a person whose gender or sexual identity does not correspond to the traditional binary opposition of male and female

 

[southernhybrid]

I've used 'they' for as long as I can remember, including here on this board. I've never found it awkward and I don't recall anyone ever expressing confusion or political outrage when I did so. I am neither that smart nor that creative or unusual. In fact, such usage is so common it is easily found in the online Oxford dictionary:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

they

/T͟Hā/

pronoun

pronoun: they

1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

"the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted"

people in general.

"the rest, as they say, is history"

INFORMAL

a group of people in authority regarded collectively.

"they cut my water off"

2. used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.

"ask someone if they could help"

used to refer to a person whose gender or sexual identity does not correspond to the traditional binary opposition of male and female

It's only a bit awkward when used to refer to one person as the subject of a sentence. For example, you have a nonbinary friend coming over for dinner and you say, "they are coming over for dinner". Traditionally, that has meant more than one person is coming for dinner. That's a little bit different than the other examples you gave, which have been in usage for a very long time. I think we all get that. In fact, I doubt that most of us even think about that usage of they, as it's been common for so long. I just don't see it as the same thing as my example.

I also wonder about my friend's daughter who recently came out as nonbinary. Is it still okay for their mom to refer to them as her daughter if they don't identify as female, since daughters have always been associated with being female? Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I can see how the usage of they as the subject of a sentence when referring to one person can be confusing. To add some humor, if we're talking about one person, shouldn't we say, they "is" coming over for dinner? And, I can see how there might be some issues regarding what word to use for son or daughter, if those terms have always been associated with male or female. Do you see where I'm coming from? I know we have at least one person who identifies as nonbinary here, perhaps they can tell us if they like being referred to as a son or daughter or is there a different term to use. I suppose a parent could say, my offspring.....I still find it a bit confusing knowing what terms to use without being offensive or confusing. That's all I was saying.

One poster who was complaining about the usage of they referred to non-binarys as delusional. I don't agree with that, even if I don't understand exactly how it feels psychologically to be nonbinary. I'm open minded and I would love to have a better understanding, if that's at all possible. It's just that I can understand how the usage of they in some cases is awkward or confusing. I know there are some new pronouns used by some nonbinary folks but I don't think most people are familiar with them.

Btw, my sister told me this weekend that her company has been doing some diversity training for their employees to help them understand the different gender IDs. She also told me that when she worked for Lucent Technologies about 20 years ago, they already had diversity training about the usage of minority gender terms. I guess Lucent was a lot more woke compared to her current employers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree that the they as a singular does sound awkward when we aren't in the habit of using it, but I'm trying to adapt. I don't want to offend anyone who is harmless and simply identifies as a member of a minority gender. I don't need to understand their identity to be respectful.

On the other hand, nonbinary folks need to be patient with people, as cultural changes come slowly, even when people are open to change. I've visited some social media sites for those who identify as nonbinary and most said that the pronouns weren't that big of a deal to them. While most preferred they, most were fine with being identified by the gender that they appeared to be. Good for them.

It's more important how you treat a person, even if you're not always using the correct gender pronoun. I have a friend who's 19 year old daughter recently came out as nonbinary. My friend is as progressive as one can be, but she told me she was having trouble always using the they pronoun for her daughter. Hopefully, her daughter will be patient with her mom, but she is 19. She's lucky to have such a caring, accepting mother as my friend. Her mother accepts her/their new identity regardless of how she refers to her/them.

Maybe some of the lesser known pronouns used to identify nonbinary folks will eventually become mainstream and this they/them confusion will end. I think there are a lot more important things for people to worry about, considering what's happening in the world.

DON'T ADAPT!! These people (or any people) have no right to take an established word, change it to their own definition. Why bend over to their wants when it is wrong. There is no such thing as "non-binary" and one cannot change their own sex. Those who say otherwise are liars and/or living in their own delusions. They (the correct plural meaning of the word) have no right to make the rest of us join in their delusions.

they​

(ðeɪ)

pron.pl. poss. their theirs, obj. them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.

Is this post actually under the impression that language is static? French has differences between Quebec and France. English from the US, England, and Australia.

I fear senor boogie woogie in Europe, crying out that they refuse to adapt... their electric device's plug. There is only one type of outlet!

 

[Metaphor]

I've used 'they' for as long as I can remember, including here on this board. I've never found it awkward and I don't recall anyone ever expressing confusion or political outrage when I did so. I am neither that smart nor that creative or unusual. In fact, such usage is so common it is easily found in the online Oxford dictionary:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

they

/T͟Hā/

pronoun

pronoun: they

1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.

"the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted"

people in general.

"the rest, as they say, is history"

INFORMAL

a group of people in authority regarded collectively.

"they cut my water off"

2. used to refer to a person of unspecified gender.

"ask someone if they could help"

used to refer to a person whose gender or sexual identity does not correspond to the traditional binary opposition of male and female

I also wonder about my friend's daughter who recently came out as nonbinary. Is it still okay for their mom to refer to them as her daughter if they don't identify as female, since daughters have always been associated with being female?

Well she is female, so I do not so a moral problem with calling your female child 'daughter'.

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I can see how the usage of they as the subject of a sentence when referring to one person can be confusing. To add some humor, if we're talking about one person, shouldn't we say, they "is" coming over for dinner?

Yes, we should do that grammatically, but the usage of they as plural is by far the more common form so it's easier to accept to our ears than 'is'.

One poster who was complaining about the usage of they referred to non-binarys as delusional.

A non-binary gender identity is not 'delusional', unless the person with the non-binary gender identity thinks that this gender identity has any effect whatever on their biological sex, or that their biological sex is meaningfully something other than male or female.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think the poster who said that those who identify as nonbinary are delusional, needs to do some reading about the long history of people in many different cultures who have identified that way. We are all ignorant about a lot of things, but we can learn if we are open minded enough to accept things that are new to us. I just wish there was a better grammatical way of using the preferred pronouns in some situations. That's all.


I've been reading a lot about contemporary people who identify as nonbinary. The more I read, the more confused I am. I'm saying that because I just read several narratives from nonbinary folks and a couple of them said that they change their genders frequently, sometimes going back to the gender associated with their biological sex etc. So, is gender fluidity just becoming common, or were people simply not discussing these things? Are we all gender fluid to some extent, but never gave much thought to this? I'll read more and perhaps find more answers to my questions. Other than my friends' daughter, I've not meant anyone in person, who is openly nonbinary. And, I don't know her daughter very well.

 

[Politesse]

, is gender fluidity just becoming common, or were people simply not discussing these things?

It is certainly becoming more commonly expressed. The way I see it is that all cultures do find some ways to express the ambiguities of gender identity, but that before religious control of social expression had been challenged by the rise of secular society, it more often had to be expressed in other coded ways, that didn't lead to violence and persecution. From Sadie Hawkins dances to Rat Pack comedies that dress the characters in drag, to secret nightclubs where gender expression was more free outright, even in the most oppressively gender binary generations of our society, outlets existed to provide relief for the feelings of dysphoria and alienation that make nonbinary folks feel more comfortable breaking free from those strictures altogether. If you hide something within popular culture, those who need relief from gender absolutism can find it there, while others can choose to dismiss it as mere harmless entertainment. See drag queens, equally well appreciated as entertainers by trans or straight audiences, but whose industry alao provided critically necessary relief for many trans people even during the strictest years of church authoritarianism. Not all drag queens are or ever were trans. But because drag queens existed, a person who wanted to act contrary to their assigned gender "sometimes but not always" -we would now categorize such a person as non-binary - would have a socially acceptable outlet to let those feelings out publically without ostracism. This is why LGBTQ+ communities usually embrace drag as an art form despite drag performers not necessarily being any of those letters.

Of course, in the case of nonbinary folks even now, not everyone who chooses to reject the binary are trans for psychological reasons. Some people just object on ideological grounds to gender classification or over-prescription, and choose to live freely as a rejection of those social norms. This type of philosophical rejection of gender roles is also nothing new to the European experience, and has occasionally been a feature of religious and philosophical movements over the centuries. The medieval alchemists for instance, and early gnostic Christians.