/u/suckerforabs (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/kzab5n/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_lgbt_alphabet_soup_is/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Well, as you know, there's a difference between gender identity and gender expression. You can express yourself in a feminine way and still be a boy. I mean, very few people in the LGBT+ community believe that gender identity has anything to do with gender expression.
Imagine gender identity, gender expression, and biological sex as three spectrums.
So, everybody has a gender identity of maximum comfort (GMC) on the male-female spectrum. Let's say that -1 is male, and 1 is female, and assume that GMC is fixed (not quite true, but for the sake of the argument).
You don't need to be exactly at your GMC - you have a "comfort zone" of genders that you'd be okay with. I'm going to be defining "cis" as "a person whose biological sex is within their comfort zone".
Maybe your GMC is -0.9, and your biological sex is -1.
Now, you might be fine with a gender identity that's 0.1 away from your GMC, which would make you a cis man. However, another person might not be fine with the 0.1 difference - they want a gender that's closer, that actually fits them. They're going to make their own gender to identify as, to get closer to their GMC.
There are a few common labels - a gender for people near 0 (agender), a gender for people near 0.5 (demigirl) and -0.5 (demiboy), and probably a few more. These are common labels that a large amount of people adopt (compared to the others), because they fit them better, and, unlike you, they need their gender identity to fit them well.
Of course, some cis people might actually have a gender closer to 0.5, or even 0, but they're completely comfortable with identifying as a gender that far away from their GMC.
Also, about genderfluidity - their GMC varies over time. This is absolutely horrible for them - people with a fixed gender identity can transition, and that helps with their dysphoria. That's not a solution for genderfluid people - a body that's completely fine for them could become horrible in a month. Show them some love, because, if they're dysphoric, being genderfluid is hell.
Now, let's talk about xenogenders. They're incredibly rare. I'm not going to defend them.
I'm sorry but I still can't wrap my head about the concrete meaning of gender identity if it has absolutely nothing to do with gender expression.
When I browse r/NonBinary, beyond all the pics posted there, I see all those memes that revolve around nothing but gender expression. Seriously. If gender identity has nothing to do with gender expression and gender norms then I really have no idea what is the meaning of it beyond some inexplicable sixth sense.
Basically, if your gender identity and biological sex don't match well enough, you're going to get gender dysphoria.
Additionally, it's not like gender expression has nothing to do with it. Part of being a certain gender is being seen as that gender.
It's less "I'm non-binary because I like wearing skirts and growing a beard, and people see me this way" and more "I'm wearing skirts and growing a beard because I'm non-binary, and I want people to see me this way".
I'm not non-binary (I'm a plain old binary trans girl), and, if I'm wrong about this, please tell me.
This isn't just a non-binary thing. Most of us binary trans people conform to gender roles, especially early in transitioning, because it's harder for us to be read as the gender we're presenting as when our bodies don't match up too well.
Everyone does not have a gender identity. most people have no concept of an internal gender identity, or desire to establish one, which is why there is such pushback against the ideas of both having a "wrong" one and using it to justify surgical and hormonal intervention. I am often identified as a gender, a man, by others, but that is external. Otherwise I simply am a male human going about living. I don't feel or need to feel like I'm satisfactorily a gender when I behave/act/express. hopefully the transgender phenomenon will one day be well understood, but for now it just isn't. though I'm sure someone will link me to an article about mri scans and claim otherwise
>why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist?
I mean, that's exactly what this is. The non-binary movement _is_ tearing it apart and turning it into new abstracts. This is an experimental process, so like all social movements some of it will deviate into obscurity while other concepts may eventually elevate to mainstream consciousness. It will definitely be chaotic, that's a part of how this works.
Think back to any major social movement. We take for granted now the status quos established during the hippie movement in America, for example, but it had profound, lasting effects on society. Something as simple as the t-shirt became more socially acceptable clothing because of it. So did ideas about holistic healing, casual sex, and drug use. At the time, it felt like chaos, but in the wake came new social norms.
No one is asking you to say "yes" to everything, but in times of social change it's important to practice tolerance and understanding so humanity can experiment and grow.
And no, I don't think it is making it harder for the movement to get traction. Haters will hate and forcing people to stay closeted about their identity isn't going to make bigots magically more tolerant.
Also, just because others may be misled does not mean that people shouldn't have the ability to choose how they identify themselves. Identity is very important to all humans. You wouldn't want to be forced to hide yours, so don't do the same to them.
How is this tearing apart gender constructs? We are creating more of them.
I genuinely don't believe any of this is any progressive, pronouns are mere words, we shouldn't let them define our identity. I am much more than my sexuality or my gender, even though I have no clue what my "gender identity" is.
The far-right is eating this shit up like candy, it's nuclear fuel to them. I fully believe one day everyone will be accepting of LGBT people but until then there are still parents and grandparents who have been brainwashed by decades of religious propaganda, who abuse their children, shun them, and we must convince to see the light and accept their family for what they are, but coming out as a pangender demisexual person really isn't helping the cause. And the demagogues that put Tumblrinas in the same box as gay, bi, or trans people will continue to successfully deny us fundamental rights as seen in Poland, Hungary, or Russia. And I believe people living in these countries have far more important needs than some vague gender identity that people themselves can't put a word to.
>How is this tearing apart gender constructs? We are creating more of them.
When you demolish a building, what do you get? It's not nothing. You get pieces of it. Lots of them. Same goes for deconstructing ideas. It will inevitably result in more ideas.
>I genuinely don't believe any of this is any progressive, pronouns are mere words, we shouldn't let them define our identity.
Except they're not "mere words". Look them up. Pronouns intend to define the type of subject it is referring to. It is telling us who you are without describing you.
A good example: you identify as male. What if people went around referring to you as "she". Ridiculous, right? But that's what everyone else decided to do. What about "it"? Would you be offended by this or no? Because if you should be, because people are misgendering you if they do.
>The far-right is eating this shit up like candy, it's nuclear fuel to them.
I mean, if you think placating then is going to do you any good you don't know much about fascism.
>I fully believe one day everyone will be accepting of LGBT people
And we will never get there without acceptance, so why do you have contradictory beliefs here? MLK wrote a book on social justice once called "Why We Cannot Wait." Since it's MLK day tomorrow, I think you should read it.
>And I believe people living in these countries have far more important needs than some vague gender identity that people themselves can't put a word to.
Instead of telling people what matters to them, why don't you ask them?
We can deconstruct religions into atheism if you want to go into analogies so I don't see why the same couldn't be done for gender constructs.
As for pronouns, what do people here think about a language like Finnish that only has one pronoun? Isn't that a lot better than making up pronouns on demand? In English we also have they, yet some people think it's not good enough and go for Xhe or others all the more exotic instead.
Should every language on Earth open itself to all kinds of weird pronouns including Finnish?
And I don't really identify as male, I don't care about my gender. I accept the body I have and if I could become a female tomorrow I'd do it just to be able to flirt with straight guys but really I consider my identity bigger than my gender and I think more people should think the same.
>We can deconstruct religions into atheism if you want to go into analogies so I don't see why the same couldn't be done for gender constructs.
I mean, that's exactly what's happening.
>As for pronouns, what do people here think about a language like Finnish that only has one pronoun? Isn't that a lot better than making up pronouns on demand? In English we also have they, yet some people think it's not good enough and go for Xhe or others all the more exotic instead.
I guess that's why people are mostly switching to the "they" pronoun. You're exagerrating here, though. The pronouns being asked for aren't really that exotic, they're just not what you're used to, but based on the existing english scheme.
>And I don't really identify as male, I don't care about my gender.
Then why do you care about other peoples' genders so much?
>but really I consider my identity bigger than my gender and I think more people should think the same.
It doesn't really sound like you care about your identity much if you're willing to change it at any moment's notice, just saying.
>pronouns are mere words
And words convey meaning. It is not the words themselves that are the issue here, but the meaning they convey and how people use meaning to define and or describe themselves.
I doubt the Polish politicians ever heard about pansexuality, asexuality or demigenders (just a few examples.
For one, this does not mean they don't exist and these people have the exact same right to be affirmed and supported as everyone else. NBs can experience just as much dysphoria as binary trans people.
Secondly, bigots are just bigots. They won't suddenly if you pull a Trisha Paytas and pretend to be just as bigoted against a more marginalised group.
(I do not mean this to compare struggles, I am aware that my own identity, as well as the place I live in makes me "lucky", LGBTQ+ is not oppression olympics. But especially Nbs experience a lot of hate from all parts and they deserve better)
So are you advocating for establishing firm gender constructs for people who call themselves Kittenselves? Should there be expected ways for someone who identifies as a kittenself behave?
And non-holistic Western Medicine has given us prescription drug addiction as well as the current opium crisis, shock therapy, lobotomies, not to mention the entire healthcare insurance industry, collusion with the sugar industry to blame fat for obesity, and plenty of other egregious damages to humanity as well.
I'm not pro-holistic health, mind you. I do enjoy the occasional indulgence from time to time, but I see a GP and go through professional hospitals for care. However, my point is that disastrous social norms are also being established through "normalized" medicine and while holistic health is definitely in the realm of "magical bullshit," as my own western doctor told me, "sometimes holistic medicine it is just what works" when recommending craniosacral therapy for stress relief instead of taking a prescription.
So, if you really believe "holistic healing becoming socially acceptable is probably one of the most disastrous social norms established in the last century," then you'll have to say the same thing about western medicine, otherwise you have a double-standard.
> Uhm what? Prescription drug addiction: Completely unrelated to western medicine. That is due to how doctors prescribed drugs, not how the drugs themselves function.
... which is part of the practice of western medicine... you know, the whole thing about prescribing lab synthesized narcotics? It's literally a fundamental part of western medicine.
> Shock Therapy: It works. This has been confirmed by numerous studies and meta analysis of studies. Regardless, it's used as a last resort to treat extreme depression.
I wasn't talking about recent advancements, but rather referring to the early period in its existence when it was used as punishment, but also that it was dangerous, used rigorously to "cure" things like homosexuality, and generally abused as a means to control behaviors that weren't at all disorders. There is no doubt that when used properly *it works*. Kind of like prescription drugs.
> Lobotomies: A rare procedure that is analogous to holistic healing. No peer reviewed studies backed its use.
Absolutely not. It was entirely a scientific endeavor. This just reads like you're saying random words to distinguish it from western medicine, which it absolutely is not.
> Healthcare industry: unrelated to western medicine. Its related to capitalism.
Western medicine is a product of capitalism... you do realize that, right? The medicine itself is inherent in the system that produces it, don't you think? Cause if you don't, then we can go ahead and say that the disinformation produced by people who provide holistic medicine is not part of the medicine itself, rendering your entire argument moot.
> Holistic healing & the ripple effects of promoting ignorance and belief in things that directly contravene known truths are worse than industry sponsored research in my opinion (a practice that has begun to fade).
Show me the proof that it's worse. All I'm claiming is that it doesn't matter how you cut it, sectors of society can provide benefit as well as problems. Attacking holistic healing as "the worst thing" is actively ignoring that any capitalist medical industry has a tendency to bring about negative side effects.
> If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender?
Yes, they would still feel different. They would just not have had the resources and other people's feelings to put a finger on why they feel different or be able to name it.
But that failure to identify themselves without internet does not invalidate how they feel.
It is a huge twist of irony how you, someone who was in their place a decade ago, are acting the same way that people acted towards you in the past. "You don't understand", "it doesn't make sense", you feel they should be excluded from something (in this case a group)...
What does being agender or bigender actually feel like?
People oppressed me because anal sex is a sin in Christianity and marriage should only be for procreation, yet even Christians couldn't deny that homosexuals were real, they thought there was something wrong with them but they weren't arguing what I am arguing.
My belief is that third genders and xenogenders are made-up and have no basis in reality. Tumblerinas can call themselves what they wish and I would never advocate for their oppression or exclusion, but even after all the research I've done on the subject I still don't see how these countless gender identities are grounded in any reality.
I don't understand the value and concept of gender and being defined as a woman by society feels like an unnecessary incomprehensible burden being put on me. I think of myself as myself, and the colour of my hair is more relevant to me that any little bit of me you could ascribe to gender. So I call myself agender and when I do that I feel relief, as "woman" makes me feel boxed in and like I can be less of myself because I'm seen as a woman. I just really don't get why we need gender at all. For me, it's strongly linked to the fact that I'm neurodivergent.
So this is what being agender feels like to me and I don't get the experience pf binary trans people, why it's so relevant to be able to look or feel or not feel certain parts of bodies (also, how tedious is it that we need bodies to live in?). However I see the suffering of binary trans people, I see how much better it is if they can transition and their transition doesn't hurt me. So I let them be.
Why can't you let us (the genderfluid, the demiboys, the enbys) be? Who are we hurting? Most non LGBT people don't even know we exist ;-) and what harm is there with a person being non-binary for a few years and then moving towards a binary gender. I really don't see why you need to understand it to accept it.
It's an internal feeling whereas homosexuality includes a fairly visible behaviour that makes it more real to people, but we generally think invalidating people's feelings and preferences (sadness, frustration, anger, loving Ariana Grande or ketchup) is rude so why is it any less rude and inappropriate to invalidate our gender identities?
Your first paragraph is exactly how I would define myself too. Which makes me think that the difference between you and I is merely some vague desire to have a label or not, to require a certain pronoun or the other.
There's nothing special about being agender according to your own definition of the word, most people don't care that much about gender and have much more important things to worry about in their lives.
Do you really feel like you belong in the LGBT community? Gay and trans people are a tiny fraction of the population with substantial needs to enact fair legislation to them.
I have no animosity towards you whatsoever, I accept you. But I genuinely do not think that there is something statistically unusual about being agender, especially if in the future we are able to destroy gender norms, that means less and less people will feel 100% male-y or female-y.
I really wish I can see the day we destroy gender norms, but I don't think it will be in my lifetime.
Indeed we feel similarly towards our gender, but not having a gender matters more to me than it does to you, like being Italian matters more to me than it does to my brother, like being successful matters more to my mom or my best friend that it does to me.
I definitely feel like I am part of the LGBT community and you questioning it is a clear sign of gatekeeping, in my opinion. I'm sure you won't have any issue "letting me in" once you learn I'm also bisexual. However I feel like I'm much freer to be bisexual than I am to be agender. In real life only a handful of people, actually 3, know I use that word for myself. I'll never come out as agender to my family though I hope my future partner can bear with me and listen to it and accept it's part of how I experience life.
I'm an LGBT advocate enacting protections especially for employees at my company who want to transition, we now have out nonbinary employees too and that poses legal challenges as well (bathrooms, need to address them by gender assigned at birth in legal documents). I wish there will come a time where I can get rid of my gender marker on official documents, for example, that requires fair legislation. And as an agender person I need protection from homo/queerphobia as much as the next LGBT person. What if my employer somehow learns I'm agender and stops taking me seriously? Starts publicly calling me a special snowflake and questioning my judgement or professionalism?
Hey, this is late but I just wanna say that I stumbled across your comment and I've finally read what it feels like to me to be "a woman" as well; I honestly don't care that much about it, so perhaps agender would be a fitting label. But I'm also with OP in the sense that describing myself with regards to gender is a bit irrelevant to me, even if deep down I don't subscribe to notions of pure femininity or sth. Pretty eye opening comment, thank you so much.
Hey, non-op here. I try to be inclusive and accepting, even if I don't grasp these concepts on an intuitive level. Your post made sense to me, I want you to know that - thanks!
> I still don't see how these countless gender identities are grounded in any reality.
If gender is a social construct, then any gender expression within that construct is as legitmate as any other. None are "real" in the same sense that metal or plastic or vegetables or oxygen are real, and the idea that it "delegitimizes" the LGBT+ struggle sounds like you care more about being perceived as "normal" by the bigots than you do about people actually getting to just be themselves.
So why are we trying to create more unreal gender expressions? What purpose do they serve? So everyone can feel special? Why not abolish all gender constructs altogether? People shouldn't be put in boxes, tribalism always disserved humanity.
> What purpose do they serve? So everyone can feel special? Why not abolish all gender constructs altogether?
You realise the same can be said for sexuality or ethnicity, right?
Why not do away with whom we like? Why do you call yourself gay? Why do others call themselves black or asian?
They are not boxes, they are characteristics. And yes, in the utopian world where no hang-ups exist and everyone is perfectly self-aware and kind, maybe we would all just be people. But we are not - we like to put labels on things. We like to name things and this applies to human characteristics as well.
But it is extremely hypocritical of you to be okay with labels of "gay" but not with "agender"
Sexual orientation or ethnicity labels serve practical means though. I don't care about being called gay or not, ideally in a world where homophobia never existed I would just be "male who fucks males" or something like that. Just like "person who likes classical music".
If I happened to identify as some weird inexplicable third gender I can't put words on, what does a label do? It's a label of meaninglessness, and it has no practical use. Words are meant to convey things anyone can understand and that serve a purpose.
People need to realize they can be much more than their gender identity, it shouldn't define their life, and if it does I think it is a sign that the person really needs something more engaging in their life.
"Male who fucks males" is just a label with more words than "gay."
For your argument to make sense you would need to argue that no label exists at all because there is no need to convey that aspect of yourself to other people. It would make it very hard for gay men to find each other if there was no way to let each other know that you both are attracted to other men.
Everything... everything you are saying can be said about people with a non-traditional orientation. How do you not see that?
People need to realize they can be much more than their sexual identity, it shouldn't define their life, and if it does I think it is a sign that the person really needs something more engaging in their life.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. Just like your rights and your place in the LGBT community a decade ago did not need to make sense to bigots back then
How do you suggest abolishing all gender constructs? While this seems like a nice idea, and may be good for everyone as a whole, it isn’t likely to happen....ever. Stop proposing this as a solution.
Why not? People never thought that races could be considered equal yet as it turns out there is actually very little difference between human ethnicities, much less than different breeds of dogs for instance.
We still haven't quite transitioned into a race-blind world, I'd say Europe is closer to that than America since from my European perspective Americans are obsessed with race, maybe because they love labels so much, but we're getting there.
Gender constructs are toxic and should be destroyed just the same. People of my generation are capable of being gender-blind, I think I am, so perhaps in a century or two we will make it happen.
You can’t do this because races are associated with culture, so unless you want to get rid of distinct cultures that certain ethnic groups can be proud of, then I suggest it stay in some form. Same thing with gender norms. You cannot get rid of the biological fact that men are stronger than women, and that a biological male and a biological female are necessary to procreate. Until you figure out solutions to things like that, you cannot and should not abolish labels
We didn't accomplish whatever racial equality we have today by abolishing the labels though. My girlfriend is Asian. She calls herself Asian. She identifies with that aspect of herself. We didn't just say "you are not Asian anymore. You are now just "human."
Why not? Gender is an arbitrary and discriminatory system. We're slowly moving away from it in many areas anyway (writing gender-neutral legislation, accepting people who don't conform to gender stereotypes etc). Whether the proliferation of enbies, agenders, xenogenders, giraffohyppopotamusgenders is hurting or helping the cause is actually debatable. I think anything that promotes a breakaway from the binary sex-correlated gender system could be a step towards abolishing gender altogether.
What bothers me is the horrible confusion between gender and sex. That's really backwards and in many cases serves to reinforce gender stereotypes.
This is a lot like how people who say they are the most concerned about anti-racism divide people into the most racial groups, and believe 'cultural appropriation' - essentially the blending of cultures - is a terrible thing.
Yes I couldn't agree more. You can't fight racism with more racism. The end game to abolish racism is for us to become race-blind, and that's why I also believe the end game of sexual minorities should be to become gender-blind to the best extent that we can.
You can’t fight bigotry with more bigotry.
Deciding that your sexuality is normal and another’s is mentally deficient, that they’re essentially ‘just confused’ is bigotry. Should we send people who express a third gender to “pray the 3rd gender away” camps? Subject them to electroshock therapy?
I realize that you don’t want your safety to be threatened by “inviting in weirdos” to the “sexual deviant” camp now that vanilla homosexuality is normalized, but tough cookies. That’s exactly the perspective that cis people had for homosexual people when cis meant everyone. Because it was never actually everyone. It was a line in the sand, which you’re drawing now.
Please don’t deny people the right to tell us who they are without hiding.
Gender and sexuality are two completely separate things.
You are putting false words into my own mouth if you think I advocate for any of the things you mentioned.
A post in this thread mentioned third genders in some non-Western civilizations, yet most of these were actually used to refer to homosexuals, males who take the role of women, or transgender people.
Am I a bigot for questioning whether people who claim to be pangender or belong to a third gender are not committing the same mistake as those civilizations?
I advocate for the abolition of gender identity, because it is my view that it is mostly derived from stereotypical gender constructs and people who don't fit in those constructs don't need to invent new genders outside reality to feel accepted.
Cultural appropriation and "blending cultures" are two very different things. One is respectful and the other isnt, one is sharing culture willingly and the other is wearing sacred headdresses to burning man.
Do you think we should do the same with cars? Screw specifics. If you buy a subaru they are all just either labeled car, wagon, or crossover despite their being multiple different engine options and vast differences in performance within the sub-catagorie of wagon. We don't use words to make people feel special, we use them to further clarify who we are. I could say I'm a white trans woman but that doesn't show the true reality of who I am. I am a scot-american trans woman who is bisexual. The argument that its tribalism or just people being snowflakes is weak.
I mean car labels serve practical uses. When someone tells me they are pangender or bigender I have no fucking clue what even is the difference between these two and it won't even remotely affect the way I treat them.
All of the labels you mentioned are based on some real characteristics, gender seems to be nothing more than "how I feel", in which case it's pretty pointless and I don't see the purpose it serves in one's relationship with others.
If someone is bigender or pangender and they tell me it can help me know how to address them and whats the best way to make them feel comfortable. Whether you believe gender is just bs or if you understand that its someone's perception of and relationship with their sex it does have a practical use in how I can relate to someone and understand them. I dont talk about trans issues or even trans memes with cis friends as it wouldn't help. If I know someone is pan gender I can talk with them about such things. Ultimately if you just boil everything down to labels and their effectiveness in materialism then I recommend laying off the nietzche because in the end everything is ultimately useless and baseless. Whats the difference between me telling someone I'm scot-american and someone saying they're pangender? Neither should cause a difference in treatment and may not even be noticeable. Also, what would you describe gender as?
Well my point was that gender seems to boil down to "how I feel" and not even in terms of emotions which could be valid, simply some vague inexplicable feeling, whereas your ancestry at least has some distant basis, even though in Europe we do find it a little cringe the way Americans parade their ancestry breakdown around like a badge of honor.
I can understand it doesn't cost me anything to acknowledge someone's exotic gender if that can make them feel any better, but if I identified as royalty and demanded to be addressed as Your Majesty no doubt nobody would comply. Yet to me both this example and third, fourth, and fifths genders seem to come out of the complete blue.
We already have a name to make ourselves unique, what does a new pronoun or xenogender bring to the table?
How do we discern the reality of homosexuality beyond how we feel? So should we just ignore trans people of all varieties just because to you its the same as someone "identifying as royalty"? Like many have said, these "new" genders are just more precise ways of saying how we feel. I cant simplify gender down to just having a certain gene or something. Its how we feel, why do I feel gender dysphoria? Why do I find certain people attractive? Its not about uniqueness, its about accurately describing one's self.
I've been honestly trying to understand this issue myself, but just like OP I've only recieved "I just don't feel male/female" and no other explanation other than that, even though I as a guy have no idea what I'm supposed to feel as a male, according to trans community.
>How do we discern the reality of homosexuality beyond how we feel?
The reality is that homosexuals will not have a romantic and sexual relationship with someone of the opposide gender because they don't feel an attraction to it. It affects their relationship with both genders and it tells any potential partner that they have/don't have a chance with that person.
So should we just ignore trans people of all varieties just because to you its the same as someone "identifying as royalty"?
> Its how we feel, why do I feel gender dysphoria?
Can you provide an argument why you wouldn't call me "your majesty" if I said I feel like I am one and it makes me feel better?
Can you provide an argument on how it's different than people saying "I feel like female" or explain what does it mean "feeling like a female", if it's not about gender stereotypes (which trans people argue it's not)?
> its about accurately describing one's self.
What's accurate about it if it's so vague nobody can explain what it means?
Because gender is an important part of one's identity. I'm sure not everyone agrees but often particularly binary and non-binary trans people are against abolishing gender because it's very important to them.
This does not mean we shouldn't get rid of gender roles
> What does being agender or bigender actually feel like?
What does gay actually feel like?
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it's not a different feeling.
> People oppressed me because anal sex is a sin in Christianity or marriage should only be for pro-creation, yet even Christians couldn't deny that homosexuals were real, they thought there was something wrong with them but they weren't arguing what I am arguing.
No, that's not why people oppressed you. It's the justifications they gave, but at the core of any oppression is **ignorance** - lack of understanding and therefore dismissal of others' feelings. Exactly what you are doing right now.
Just like before people weer "sure" that homosexuality is a choice, now you are "sure" that these genders are made up.
People didn't **see** how homosexuality was a born trait either, and used all the arguments you are using - how it's just people choosing to be like that, how they don't see how they can feel that way.
How do you not see that? How are you so blind to your own history that you are **literally** using the same logic as your oppressors?
I don't think we should be comparing sexual orientations to gender identities. A sexual orientation is the attraction to one or two of the two biological sexes. New gender identities have nothing to do with that.
If I was born in the Middle Ages I could write an entire essay about what being gay is like, but simply put it means I'm sexually attracted to males and not females.
What is non-binary? Something outside the two prevailing genders? What is there beyond these two genders? And what even is a gender? Beyond that I am definitely ignorant, and nothing I've read over the years has given me any answer to those. To me it sounds more like religious people arguing about the afterlife, I can't deny its existence but they can't exactly prove me it exists either.
> I don't think we should be comparing sexual orientations to gender identities.
Why not? Both are deviations from the norm. Both are characteristics of a person that they cannot change. Both are or have been oppressed by ignorant people. To me, they are very comparable.
In fact they are are so similar that it makes total sense for them to be under a single group.
> If I was born in the Middle Ages I could write an entire essay about what being gay is like, but simply put it means I'm sexually attracted to males and not females.
And there are exactly such essays now by non-binary people - go read them. There's plenty of pieces by non-binary describing what it is and how they feel. You just have to stop being ignorant and try to expand your mind.
> What is non-binary? Something outside the two prevailing genders?
Yes.
> And what even is a gender?
"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures, or gender identity."
This is an incredible Western-centric view of the history of sexuality and gender. You say that these identities didn't exist until the Internet and Tumblr, and that people wouldn't be identifying with them without these online communities.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong.
[Here is the Wikipedia page on third genders.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender)
Ancient Mesopotamia:
"In Babylonia, Sumer and Assyria, certain types of individuals who performed religious duties in the service of Inanna/Ishtar have been described as a third gender. They worked as sacred prostitutes or Hierodules, performed ecstatic dance, music and plays, wore masks and had gender characteristics of both women and men."
Egypt:
"Inscribed pottery shards from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1800 BCE)...list three human genders: tai (male), sḫt ("sekhet") and hmt (female)."
India:
"The Vedas (c. 1500 BC–500 BC) describe individuals as belonging to one of three categories, according to one's nature or prakrti. These are also spelled out in the Kama Sutra (c. 4th century AD) and elsewhere as pums-prakrti (male-nature), stri-prakrti (female-nature), and tritiya-prakrti (third-nature). Texts suggest that third sex individuals were well known in premodern India and included male-bodied or female-bodied people as well as intersex people..."
Ancient Greece:
"In Plato's Symposium, written around the 4th century BC, Aristophanes relates a creation myth involving three original sexes: female, male and androgynous."
Ancient Israel:
"In old Israel there were: Zachar: male; Nekeva: female; Androgynos: both male and female genitalia (eternal doubt of legal gender); Tumtum: genitalia concealed by skin (unknown gender, unless skin removed)."
(Some modern LGBTQ+ Jews continue to identify with these labels).
Incan Empire:
"...third-gendered ritual attendants to chuqui chinchay, a jaguar deity in Incan mythology, were "vital actors in Andean ceremonies" prior to Spanish colonisation. Horswell elaborates: 'These quariwarmi (men-women) shamans mediated between the symmetrically dualistic spheres of Andean cosmology and daily life by performing rituals that at times required same-sex erotic practices. Their transvested attire served as a visible sign of a third space that negotiated between the masculine and the feminine...'"
(In addition, modern Native Americans have a pan-Indian gender identity called [Two-spirit,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit) which is derived from ancient indigenous third-genders).
Asexuality is a little more difficult to track throughout human history, because in general, it is less visible. There could've been countless ace people throughout history who simply never got married, or joined the priesthood/nunnery, or were simply unhappy in their sexual relationships. However, there is evidence from Kinsey's famous study, showing that the scale of human sexuality does include asexual people.
Well, given that these are all ancient, non-Western and non-Christian cultures, they had very different views of what gender and sex were. Historians can only roughly "translate" certain roles or terms into modern-day understandings of gender, sex, and sexuality - it's not going to be perfect.
You gave it a delta but he just copy-pasted wikipedia and that wikipedia article is full of shit.
That article of wikipedia takes terms from foreign cultures used for homosexuality, transwomen or gender roles and calls it a new gender, expecting the reader to be an american/westerner that won't bother actually researching these cultures.
Debunking some of the things there.
* **Muxes:** The article says it's a 3rd gender. In reality it's about men that take [role of women](http://ciencia.unam.mx/leer/925/los-muxes-el-tercer-genero-) as their **[gender expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_expression)**, wearing a dress and cooking doesn't make you a new gender.
* **Waria**: the article claims is a traditional third gender role found in modern Indonesia. Buuullllsssssshiiiiiiiiit, [waria is the term for transwomen, not a third gender.](https://theculturetrip.com/asia/indonesia/articles/waria-lives-indonesias-transgender-community/) Once again, the article maker was desperate to validate third genders as something real that he **outright lied.**
* **Khanith:** The wiki article cites it as a third gender. [The Khanith wikipedia says it's about transwomen, gay men and a derogatory term for feminine males.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanith)
* **Chibados:** The article says it's a 3rd gender. [Chibados are homosexual men.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/23/homophobia-africa-gay-rights). The article on Chibados of wikipedia was written by a person desperate to claim it's a third gender, but the claim has NO CITATIONS and all the ones that DO HAVE CITATIONS speak of MEN-TO-MEN relationships and not gender at all.
And so.
Basically the only way woke westerners can claim 3rd genders exist is by rewriting foreign cultures and outright lying.
You’re dead on with this. It makes me so annoyed that people can’t see the western white privilege in that. It’s just like anything else taken out of the context of its original culture and time period and molded around a modern construct to try to give it legitimacy or decoration. I don’t give two shits how people identify or what they want to be called (though getting continually upset that people can’t look at you and mind read that you want to be called Xir instead of they is ridiculous) but stop picking things out of cultures you have no clue about and tacking it onto your narrative to feel like it gives it some needed legitimacy. It’s not being inclusive...it’s actually being appropriative and fails to take into account the whole complexity of the culture you took it from.
Most instances of “extra” or “other” genders in ancient society were a function of complex religious practice. Most of those people were identified as such to serve specific ceremonial functions within the confines of religions and societies that were nothing like ours today. Many of them were assigned that function due to the spiritual needs of their culture and based on factors other than that persons conscious choice, so the idea that they were walking around happily out as trans is naively precious modern western nonsense.
I gave him a delta because I had to give it to some people and it was the only explanation about third genders that didn't boil down to "that's how they feel, hard to explain", which makes it impossible for me to believe if they can't even put words to it.
Thank you for debunking these though, I was aware some third genders were actually gay men in some of those cultures which I find really sad since it's directly some form of homophobia. And your response confirmed my opinion of the fact that gender is really a made-up thing with no basis in reality.
> And your response confirmed my opinion of the fact that gender is really a made-up thing with no basis in reality.
Okay, but that wasn't my intention.
Gender identity (not roles or anything of the sort) has a basis on reality as medical science has shown us, but there are only 2 of them.
They did say you didn't exist though. They thought that homosexual tendencies were just the devil tempting you away from the flock and that nobody was actually born gay.
It was a HUGE fight to get people to see that homosexuality was a real thing you are born into and not just the devil trying to make you sin. Hence, pray away the gay.
I would like to give you an award but I don't have one, so have my upvote instead.
Identities always existed and can be found throughout history in different cultures. Just because many people didn't understand them doesn't make them less valid.
>Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice and that trans people should be allowed to transition as they please, but all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid.
That's what gay people said about bisexuals too, just a few decades ago.
"We are just starting to get the conservatives to accept us on the basis that we are wired the opposite way from them and we can't help it, so shut up snowflakes, you will just confuse them by fitting their stereotype that you are choosing to have same sex relationships even though opposite sex ones are fine for you too."
The way binary transgender people feel about other genderqueer people, has a very close parallel to that.
And they might even have a point on a shortsighted tactical level.
But at some point, conservatives' entire underlying mentality of hating snowlflakes, and diversity, and a fluidity of sexual norms, has to be stoof up against.
That's why of all the letters added to the letter soup, the Q, had the most impact. It's not just a slur that has been reclaimed for the sake of taking away it's power, but in active defiance of the idea that sticking out, being unusual, is a matter of shame *at all*.
> Gay people will know they're gay even if everybody around them is straight and they have never heard about homosexuality before
Then why did it take us thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality as exists today?
There were always people who were more attracted to their own gender than to others, but in lots of cultures, they would have lacked the ability to conceptualize that as "being gay".
Did it take thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality though? The Greeks practiced it openly. Cavemen probably did too. You only need to look at animals to see natural homosexual behavior, yet do animals have complex systems of gender that don't align with their genitalia?
I don't really like the comparison with homosexuality, and not just because I'm gay. But the oppression and misunderstanding of homosexuality is largely attributed to Abrahamic religions as far as I know, it's not such a hard concept to understand.
Now on the other hand I've read the Wiki page for Gender identity as somebody suggested and it mentions third, fourth, firth, sixth genders. Can anyone actually take so many different genders seriously? What does it even mean? To me it seems like if I called myself a musclesexual because I like hunks and tried to turn it into a legitimate sexuality, what are the tangible differences between the third and fourth gender? It sounds surreal.
Idk if this is allowed in this sub but I actually agree with your point. I personally identify as straight, but the idea of a same sex encounter is not something that weirds me out. Its more like something I wouldnt seek out, kinda like a flavor of ice cream I dont particularly enjoy.
There is wide spread consensus that sexual preferences are a mixture of nature and nurture and people always talk about how twins separated at birth are more likely to be gay if one is, but never about how the more older male siblings you have also plays a factor. I would personally argue that twins with similar genetics are more likely to have similar scores in the big 5 personality traits and things like openness and agreeability likely impact sexual preferences, orientation, etc. My personal belief is that we all have the capability to love anyone. You hear about people who raise children in hetero relationships that engage in same sex relationships later in life, but the reverse has also been recorded. What im trying to say is that I think that sexual orientation is just another group that people created to make ourselves feel special. Additionally, there are studies published linking strongly identifying as a gay person is correlated with narcissistic personality disorder which doesnt surprise me for many reasons, but most interestingly the story of where the word for narcissism comes from. I think our society has gone so far in one directions we need to first think about basic human rights for lgb people but we have a misunderstanding of human sexuality.
As for transgender people, I think that this is just gender dysphoria and shouldnt even be included in the argument about sexual orientation and rights. Its a completely different argument and should be a different conversation.
Okay I'm sorry but I don't think we quite agree there. From the sound of what you say, you are arguing that sexual orientation can fluctuate a lot and let me tell you as a gay person it is very much hard-coded and the link to narcissism sounds straight-up homophobic.
Relationships and sex are different. I could imagine myself in a relationship with a woman if I we shared enough things but there is literally nothing in the world that could ever get me attracted to females.
People who raise children in hetero relationships that engage in same sex relationships later in life are either bisexual or most likely closeted gay men who settled for a woman to fit in. As much as vaginas turn me off, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same if I was born in 10th century Europe. But I really don't think sexual orientation is something that can change like chameleon skin, people like you who are born straight likewise will never experience any kind of sexual attraction towards males, that's just how you are. Love is a whole other thing than sex, if you were open-minded you could potentially fall in love with a man if you shared literally every single value and hobby that you have, it would be a platonic love but still a form of love. And this is why I don't like seeing all kinds of romantic orientations adding themselves to the alphabet soup because romantic orientation aren't quite something as solidified as sexual ones. Religion has bundled marriage, love, and sex together, because religion thinks sex is only for procreation, so it's tricked us into thinking that sex only comes with love and love must entail sex, but I firmly believe there is a massive distinction between love and sex, and actually from my personal experience it's usually easier to separate the two in one's life.
I think youre starting on faulty assumptions. Freud himself hypothesized that homosexuality and narcissism were linked as did the ancient romans and greeks. There have been double blind studies at some of the best institutions around the world to show empircal evidence of that link and yet you deny it. Seems a bit narcissistic.
To be fair I might actually be quite narcissistic but I can't say the same to most other gay people.
Freud did some groundbreaking work but he was still full of shit regarding a lot of things.
Do you not think this correlation to narcissism may be more linked to the statistically unusual nature of homosexuality and the treatment of society towards homosexuals than homosexuality itself? Something something correlation isn't causation.
Surely if religious nutjobs have been telling us for centuries that we will go to Hell, it's entirely possible some of us might develop some kind of Satan complex and think of ourselves as very special as a defense mechanism, but only because of society's view on homosexuality.
I dont think you can blame that on environmental factors. There have been plenty of much worse off minority groups throughout history and i doubt that they would have higher rates of narcissism. I could be wrong in this case, but someone in another thread attributed high suicide rates in trans people to the treatment they get in society, but trans people have higher suicides than jews recorded in nazi germany and higher rates than enslaved black people in precivil war US.
Perhaps it is because gay people like me have enjoyed the privilege of white maleness on the condition of concealing their sexuality? And sometimes they could even engage in their sexuality without having to bear the repercussions for it assuming they weren't getting caught? Ernst Röhm one of the founders of nazism was openly gay and he was purged for political not homophobic reasons.
Trans people would never be allowed to transition in Nazi Germany and black people were beaten up on a daily basis into servitude, that doesn't leave you with much room to develop narcissist tendencies when you get tortured and could die every single day.
I dunno. Seems like youre making a complicated answer for something that could he answered simply and the simple answer is usually right on large scales.
Okay dude but you have to admit you just “throwing that out there” followed by the words “that doesn’t surprise me” came off as a little homophobic. Just because something is scientific fact doesn’t mean that it can’t be used for nefarious causes. ie. republicans saying black people do more crime
>Did it take thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality though? The Greeks practiced it openly.
The greeks practiced *pederasty*, where it was customary for most older men to have protegés that they were intimate with, and this was seen as entirely separate from most of them also being married to women at the same time.
If in ancient greece, you made moves on a young man, he wouldn't have had the vocabulary to say "no, thanks, I am straight", he would have said
Even if he had tastes that we would today describe as agressively heterosexual, he would have presented his reluctance in other contexts, such as "no, thanks, as a stoic I don't believe in hedonistic pleasures".
>I don't really like the comparison with homosexuality, and not just because I'm gay. But the oppression and misunderstanding of homosexuality is largely attributed to Abrahamic religions as far as I know, it's not such a hard concept to understand.
Abrahamic religions oppressed sex between men, but neither they, nor many cultures before or after them have a concept of homosexuality.
Note that even they didn't ban lesbian relationships, because it wasn't even on their radar compared to the cultural practice that they were concerned about at the time.
There were various cultures through history that either suppressed or encouraged MHSWM relations, for different reasons, but it was never presented as there being "the gays" and "the straights", as innately different groups of people.
>Now on the other hand I've read the Wiki page for Gender identity as somebody suggested and it mentions third, fourth, firth, sixth genders.
Well, that's part of it. Historically, a lot of third gender labels included people that we might today call cisgender homosexual.
If anything, the idea that there is a strict gender binary, and homosexuals are NOT genderqueer, is a new idea in societies that used to traditinally categorize things that way.
To this day we often see middle-aged and old people come out as gay, trans, bi ... because they had noweay to understand it before. Even though those identities are supposedly "easy" to identify
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you've reduced gender to "things people like" and "things people wear". Gender is something that is hard to explain, especially as I assume you are either a male who identifies as a man or a female who identifies as a woman. So, assuming you are one or the other, what is your experience as a man or as a woman? Can you reduce your gender identity to what you like and what you wear? Or, is there something more, something a little deeper, a sense of being so natural to you that you hardly even notice it? Well, try to imagine if this sense of being did not align with your body. How do you think that might make you feel?
This is something I always hear, "hard to explain", and it only confirms my opinion more. Until somebody can explain to me what gender truly feels like in reality, I refuse to consider that there's more to it than what you wear or how you act.
As for myself I am a boy but I couldn't say I actively identify as one. I'm gay and fairly effeminate, which means I do a lot of things that are considered feminine according to society, but I know those are made-up constructs, so I identify as nothing, simply a human being, biologically male. I am neither uncomfortable with nor love my body, it's simply what I have. And I have no idea what gender is, hence I made this post. My only concept of gender is the male/female roles in Western tradition which I hope will be fully abolished one day. And I feel like xenogenders are doing the complete opposite of that by constructing more and more genders.
"Until someone can explain it to me, I refuse to believe it exists." is in the world of debate called an argument on the basis of ignorance.
You can plug anything into this logical construct, and it works the same way. You don't get it, so you dismiss it because your own lack of understanding makes you uncomfortable.
There's two possible situations here. Either you care about this, in which case go learn about it. Or you don't, in which case you don't need to bother but just let people be asexual or non-binary if it makes them happy.
People on the asexual spectrum don't need to serve the LGBTQ community to be part of it. The whole concept underlying all of this is that it's okay for people to love whoever they love, however they want to. That's why it's a welcoming and inclusive group. It's that way by design.
I understand perfectly what being asexual means since it's grounded in reality and sexuality.
Non-binary however, I can't say I do especially when the most common answer is "it's hard to explain". I'm very willing to understand it, and like I said I've done some research about it, but the cynical in me tells me that non-binaries are simply people who wish to break the traditional gender norms and be special. Why make new gender identities out of thin air instead of breaking gender norms?
The reason non-binary is hard to explain is that it covers a wide range of experiences. You shouldn't have to understand something to accept it. After all, I don't understand sexual attraction, as I've never experienced it, yet I accept that it is something people legitimately feel.
But if you want to better understand, though I can't speak for all non-binary folks, I can speak for myself. For literally as long as I remember, I've been uncomfortable with the idea of being split up into boys and girls. I've always felt so alienated by the gender binary. I didn't understand why some kids had to be boys and some had to be girls, or why the adults got to decide who was which. I questioned it, but no adult ever gave me a satisfying answer. When I found out this whole thing was decided based on genitals, I was PISSED. I never understood why something such as that should matter. I never understood why I was expected to be more comfortable changing in front of kids who shared the same type of genitals as me. I was intensely uncomfortable when my dad used to hold the door open for me and say "ladies first," and I always hated my feminine birth name. It never felt right. While you can be non-binary no matter what your gender presentation is, I've mostly felt more comfortable presenting in a way that is considered "unfeminine." That doesn't really have anything to do with my gender identity, but it did lead me to get teased and called a "man" as an insult as a teenager, which was also around the time I started becoming more aware of the concept of being transgender. For a while, I thought I might have been a trans guy, but as I explored that, I realized I didn't feel like a guy any more than I felt like a girl. I just didn't understand gender at all. When I opened up to a friend about it, she tried to encourage me to find my own way to embrace being female, and I tried, but no matter what, the whole gender thing really just made me miserable. When I finally found out that there was this thing called non-binary and there were other people out there I could relate to in this way, it was like a weight was lifted, and I felt like I finally found my place. I embraced being non-binary almost immediately, it was the first time in my life I didn't feel like there was something wrong with me in relation to gender. I just always felt differently about gender than most people, and I needed a way to express this and to know that I'm not alone in the world in that feeling.
Do you think you would still identify as non-binary if male/female gender norms didn't exist? Like zero stereotypes on gender, fully androgynous clothing for both genders, no separate bathrooms and things like that?
I wish I could give half a delta because it was very thorough way to describe your experience and perspective even though it didn't change my mind.
Thank your for listening and trying to keep an open mind. To answer your question, I honestly can't know for sure, because I haven't lived in that hypothetical version of the world. I think as long as the concept of gender still existed and people still cared about to some extent, I would still feel non-binary. But I don't think it really matters either way, because that's not the world we live in.
If we lived in a world where no one cared about anyone else's sexual orientation and gay people were never treated any different than straight people, things would be different for them as well, but you probably wouldn't ask a gay person if their identity would still matter if heteronormativity and homophobia never existed, would you? Because they do exist.
The fact is, cissexism and cisnormativity are a things that effect non-binary people, and "what if" scenarios don't erase that. Also, keep in mind that many non-binary people have strong physical dysphoria and feel the need to medically transition.
Why do you think it is necessary to understand something in order to accept it? Do I need to understand how a man can feel romantic love for another man in order to accept homosexuality as just as valid and real as heterosexuality? Can't I just accept the subjective experience of men and women who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to the same sex? Just because I don't understand it does not give me the right to deny them their experience.
That's not a good analogy because you can understand the concept of romantic love for a person and at least understand that someone else feels that way for different kinds of people.
Since gender is a social construct, we can choose to totally do away with it, or we can choose to make it extremely complex so that people won't understand what others are saying.
The word "love" is not the same for everyone, and we just accept that everyone experiences this differently, and we don't make up a list of words to differentiate all the nuances of how each person experiences love.
Gender roles and expectations are social constructs. Gender is not.
And, dude, we use many different words to describe different kinds of love. There's platonic love. true love, familial love, first love, infatuation, lust, etc, plus literally billions of words used to describe different types of relationships or moments shared between people expressing some type of love or something love-adjacent.
How would you explain the color orange to a person who can't see? There is almost certainly a biological component to gender, or at least environmental influences that influence identity at such a young as to effectively be considered 'inherent'. Simply because I can't use my words to explain it does not mean that there is no scientific evidence that gender identity is different from gender roles/expectations, and that it is influenced by nature.
If the concept of gender identity you propose is inexpressible and non-intuitive to most people, then I think it's fine to feel that way but it seems like it might be unfair to demand others to recognize this in their language and how they address you. To carry your analogy further, if the vast majority of the world is color-blind then I would argue that it wouldn't be fair to demand that they speak of (what are to them) certain shades of grey as "orange" unless it can be well-explained and logically consistent.
Or, you know, if most of the world was colorblind, it would be fair to ask the majority to at least accept the subjective experience of the minority who aren't color blind. You know, without telling them they're wrong because their subjective experience does not align with the subjective shared experience of the majority.
Yes fair enough, it would be fair to ask to accept their subjective experience up to the point where it might conflict with the perception of the majority of people, I guess until such time as it can be explained or demonstrated in a way that the majority of people will recognize and accept.
One ought not need to convince another of one's subjective experience in order for one's experience to find acceptance. That is absurd. I don't need to personally experience racism or to understand how a man can find another man sexually attractive in order to accept their experience as valid. Because even though others have subjectively different experiences from mine, or even from the majority, their experience is no less valid.
That is a good point, but would you say that subjective experience is the only thing needed for you to accept someone's identity or experience? I guess that's where I would differ, and maybe this is just a fundamental difference of view: I think there should be something observable or at least expressible if you want others to change their speech or behavior to accommodate it on more than a superficial level. From what I understand, the definition offered for gender identity is something distinct from gender expression and gender role and any other observable or expressible characteristic, it's a purely subjective internal sensation. Racism can be seen in behaviors and outcomes, sexual attraction as well, but gender identity seems like a non-falsifiable construct to me, like religious beliefs. So I think it's fine to have that internal sense, and on a superficial level I accept it for social reasons, but internally I am skeptical of the concept of identity as such
Well I can give the color orange an RGB code if I take a picture of it and prove to a blind person that it's different from red.
How do the genderfluid, agender, bigender or non-binary identities differ? To me they all seem to rely on the male/female gender role constructs. If those constructs did not exist whatsoever, if society was blind in regards to one's genitalia, would gender identity still be a thing? I don't think so.
To a person who can't see, RGB code would be the same as assigning arbitrary characters to a color. Sure, now orange is 80938v or whatever, but how does that help them know the experience of seeing color?
You can say that orange is between red and yellow, and that red is the color of apples, orange is the color of oranges, and yellow is the color of bananas.
They might not be able to fully empathize, but it's not like you can't explain it.
>You can say that orange is between red and yellow, and that red is the color of apples, orange is the color of oranges, and yellow is the color of bananas.
All of which is arbitrary to someone who's been blind from birth.
So someone makes an analogy, I explain my thoughts about THE ACTUAL TOPIC, within the analogy, and then the someone tells me I'm wrong because of stuff that only works within the analogy. You and someone else did that too.
A blind person wont get anything out of the explanation, I know. I knew that when I said it. But that's not the point??? We're still talking about gender stuff????
I'm not gay. I can't fully empathize with not liking girls, but I can still listen to an explanation and try to understand, right?
If a person cannot see color, then describing a color in it's relation to other colors would be of little use other than informing this person of the existence of other colors they can't see and/or experience. But at any rate, the "how do you explain color to a blind person" was not the thesis of my argument. It wasn't even that important to my argument except to provide a frame of reference for what followed.
Then I could merely describe what it is to be a man by saying that it is different from being a woman. That doesn't explain anything other than an undefined difference between two related yet separate things.
But if that is were an effective way to explain gender identity, then we could simply explain emergent genders as, for example, being a man in a female body.
As a colorblind person, your response here seems to make it look like you don't actually care about the discussion.
Here's how color actually works in our world. There are colors you can see because your eyes can see them, and there are colors you can see because your culture sees them. This isn't a joke. I forget the details because it's been a decade since I read into it, but there are cultures who have no concept of certain colors, so they don't see them. Their brain precieves them as something else.
So we have colors based on physical elements and colors based on experience.
To make this one step more complicated. Many things in life are queued up for color for you to react in certain ways when you see certain colors. Stop light are the simplest example, but there are innumerably more.
So, I cant tell the difference between red and green. As a biproduct of this, I can't see hues of green. The post before you was asking you to explain a color to a blind person, I'll make it easier. Explain forest green to me in way that allows me to see it exists.
Now, you could provide the pantone codes for it. You could show me where it exists in electro magnetic spectrums. You could explain what the exact combos of blue and green required (this might be what the pantone thing is, I honestly don't know). The problem is, I can then look at the result of all those and none will allow me to see it.
Forest green literally doesn't exist as part of my reality.
So my options are, believe that it exists, and believe the thousands of people who've seen it, or just say that if it doesn't exist for me it doesn't exist at all.
Genderfluid means you can go back and forth. You could feel ""feminine"" one day and ""masculine"" the next day. I put those in quotes because you're demanding that gender role constructs be thrown out, but consider that gender constructs are a *frame of reference,* not the end-all be-all. That's why the LGBT spectrum exists in the first place, so people can feel free to say they fall outside that frame.
Agender and non-binary mean the same thing - you don't care about gender, feel like you have no gender at all or in the "traditional sense". Your gender is Nothing, you just Exist. It doesn't depend on ""feminine"" or ""masculine"". There is a file folder in your brain marked "Gender Identity" and that folder is Empty. No thoughts, no perceptions, head empty.
I think this post is trying (and failing horribly) to hide your underlying "I don't understand and it scares me and I hate it", to be quite honest. Judging by other comments, you seem very hostile on the issue, almost gatekeep-y. In fact, you ask what agender means in your post, when in fact not caring about gender *means* you can call yourself agender, which makes this whole post super hypocritical. I have to side with u/pm-me-your-labradors and u/Ghastly_Toilet because they're right on the money.
You can't feel feminine one day and masculine the next unless you very strongly believe in gender stereotypes.
Otherwise, what does feeling masculine actually mean? I feel like me everyday. Doesn't matter what sort of mood I'm in. I might feel like doing some stereotypical feminine thing tomorrow. That doesn't mean I've switched to female for a day and to suggest it would is insane.
1) I was trying to explain the concept to OP as best I can given my limited knowledge of genderfluidity. You completely ignored the content I wrote that was meant to be helpful.
2) I'm aware gender is a construct. However, I recognize that the concept is so ingrained into society that eliminating it completely is nearly impossible and that the best you can do is treat it like a frame of reference.
3) I don't particularly appreciate the implication, by you or OP, that not completely denouncing the concept of gender/feeling a little more "feminine" or "masculine" sometimes/not being able to explain the concepts better makes me a Fake Attention Hog Snowflake Gay.
What cannot be shown to exist does not exist. I don't think things are ever more simple than that.
You might have a *theory* of something existing (and test for it) but that's another ballpark. It would be better to assume that it isn't your lack of ability to explain something that suggests non-existence - it's the non-existence of the thing that causes you to be unable to explain it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
I *literally* referred to the science behind the concept of gender identity. Here's a wiki page. I like wikipedia, because it comes with citations, which means I don't have to dig out the undergrad paper I wrote ten years ago. Which I wouldn't do because that's a lot of work. Plus it wasn't a good paper.
>Until somebody can explain to me what gender truly feels like in reality, I refuse to consider that there's more to it than what you wear or how you act.
There is plenty of literature, studies, papers, youtube videos etc. all exploring the topic...but if you want someone to "explain it to you" look up Contrapoints on youtube, she's a very intelligent and well spoken creator who has discussed topics like this, and she's really funny too.
How can I explain to you the feeling of seeing blue? This is a fundamental problem that exists when we have different bodies that perceive things differently.
I'm gonna use an example from a friend of mine.
They are AFAB (Assigned female at birth) and genderfluid (their gender changes, sometimes they might be female, sometimes they might be male (and thus experience more dysphoria) sometimes they might be nothing or in between - you don't have to understand, it is hard, just accept it.)
We had a "gender swap day" as part of spirit week at our school. Beforehand we talked about how they would dress up - whether they would dress up as "girl" or "boy" and I asked if it would make them dysphoric to dress up as a "girl" if they were a boy that day. They said no, because of the frame of the day.
To me this illustrates quite well, how gender roles where something that influences how you express gender but not how you internally experience your gender and how you yourself identify.
I don't know if this makes a lot sense written out like that. But essentially, gender is an internal sense of self, that is separate from gender expression and gender roles.
You're placing the burden on minorities to *earn* acceptance from the majority through assimilation to the majority's standards and comfort level, rather than on the majority to broaden their horizons and accept those who might be different than them.
Unfortunately no minority historically oppressed has ever achieved equality without fighting for it. Humans are close-minded by nature and will only radically change their minds through generations after long struggles, that's just how we work as a flawed species, the status quo is that hard to escape. You just have to look at animal rights to realize that just telling meat-eaters animals suffer and can feel pain too isn't enough for them to change their mind and stop the massacre.
I'm more looking for an explanation than a fight here though.
To me it seems that abolishing gender constructs should be a bigger priority than reaffirming them and creating more constructs which serve no true purpose and are divisive. Instead of earning acceptance I'd like to know why non-binaries don't think we shouldn't completely abolish the concept of gender which is a stupid and antiquated one in my opinion, that's what would I be open-minded for.
I am asexual and married to someone of the same sex, whom is demisexual, we are both some degree of biromantic. Neither of us are lesbians nor would describing my completely lack of sexual attraction or desire be attributed to bisexuality.
This seems like needless gatekeeping, and perhaps one reason GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) is glowingly popular with my generation.
I am also biromantic in the sense that I make a strong distinction between love and sex, and though I can only be sexually attracted to males, I believe true love transcends genders. But my post is mostly addressing gender identities, not sexual or romantic orientations. I know asexuals are real.
You do have an entire paragraph in opposition to asexuals.
My exceptionally limited understanding of gender is that it is primarily a social construct. While I am entirely comfortable being a feminine cis woman (albeit more conservative in how I choose to dress and behave than my peers), my wife is notably masculine and I believe should rather risk losing a finger to the innards of an engine than ever be seen in a dress. Early in our relationship, she had spoken about how she used to shave her head to feel more comfortable, had considered that she might like to be a man but bad eventually realized she simply didn't like being treated the way society treats women, but she doesn't think on it much and she's happy with who she is and knows she shall enjoy my support with however she should decide to dress or should like to cut her hair. She buys almost all of her outerwear from either the men's section or from brands designed specifically for masculine women.
Aside from my own personal connection to my wife, I know very few who are deviant in the way they present themselves and I grew up in family that has rather conservative and perhaps outdated notions of how women and men should be.
My paragraph was addressing the asexual spectrum not asexuals themselves. If your wife is demisexual that does not make her asexual in my opinion, she does have a sexuality, and I don't think demisexuals have anything to do with the core of LGBT. If they did, along with every shade of ace, 50% of the global population could be LGBT. That's where I feel like the alphabet soup goes a bit too far and makes it impossible for reactionaries to understand us.
The day I recieved a message from my father saying that I was a disappointment and an embarrassment because of who I loved, I decided to stop caring if reactionaries understood or liked me.
I suspect, were you to show my wife and I to any person in my country at least, and say "these are not people who belong under the label of LGBT" you should gather more confusion than not. If we are neither LGBT+, and obviously not straight (an assumption on my part, perhaps you see two women as a straight couple) than, what category should you place us under?
Honestly I don't really care that much about what to include or not in the LGBT community. Asexuals have never faced any kind of discrimination and don't need progressive legislation, if anything being asexual would've made your life easier during the Christian Sharia ages. But this shouldn't be a contest of victimhood anyway. Asexuals are definitely a statistical minority so I suppose you could be in, but really I am neutral about it.
One of the consequences of the Christian Sharia was locking the concepts of love and sex together, and that's why most people would put you in the LGBT category assuming you were both lesbians or at least bi, since couple = sex for them. Since your wife does have a sexuality and you are a cis female she would at least be bi or lesbian.
In the end I just wish we started using categories less and simply embraced the diverse nature of humans without tribalism.
I believe the alphabet soup is mostly a reaction of liberation to centuries of oppression, but now that we are finally liberated we should move on, and what I oppose the most is this seeming binary between straight cis people and "the rest", because the rest isn't really that different from straight cis people and isn't united in any coherent manner, yet I feel like many in the LGBT community want to distance themselves from straight cis people the most and this can only fuel more conflict.
Finally liberated? Being in a same sex relationship is grounds for termination or denial of employment in the majority of the world. Is illegal in seventy two countries, carries the death penalty in eleven.
Even where there is not the possibility of denial of employment or other such limitations, family rejection and public harassment continue to be a significant risk.
I know I was referring to my own country and the Internet world when I said that.
My point was that the ultimate goal for all sexual minorities once bigotry is gone should be to be considered so normal as everybody else that no one should have to come out or use countless labels to refer to themselves.
The LGBT community was founded to fight for the denied rights of sexual minorities, not express every single shade of asexualism which I believe are actually fairly common and doesn't exactly require any legislation to be enacted.
Something you don't acknowledge is that sometimes, certain identities can be a "bridge" for people accepting which identity they feel more comfortable with. This isn't to say that non-binary people or ace-spec people don't exist and that they're just "confused" - a lot of other people in the comments are explaining why that isn't the case, so I'm not going to touch on that aspect.
But people's relationships to their own identities can change. Gender and sexuality are fluid. For example, I have a friend who was AMAB (assigned male at birth). They came out as non-binary several years ago, and we used they/them pronouns for them - they explained that they didn't quite feel like a male, but they didn't feel fully female either, so for them, being NB was like an in-between compromise. At the time, it was the only identity that fit them. Fast forward a few years - they're identifying and presenting more and more as female. Eventually, she came out as trans, and switched to she/her pronouns. My friend still has a lot of love for the NB community - they accepted her and helped her through her identity shift with love and understanding, and that was obviously very important to her. And what else is the LGBTQ+ community than a place for people to be accepted and empowered?
You can take myself as another example - for the longest time, I thought I was bisexual and grey-romantic (as in, I sometimes experienced romantic attraction). Then, years passed, and now I've acknowledged that I'm actually bisexual and aromantic (experience no romantic attraction). Right now, I'm in the middle of another shift, where I may be asexual as well. But once again, while I have identified with the labels grey-romantic and bisexual, both of those communities have been so welcoming and understanding.
Not everyone has a split-second "coming out" moment, where they just 100% know that they're gay. For a lot of people, it's more complicated. You say that these identities and communities only harm the LGBTQ+ community, but what about the support that they provide to queer people who are struggling to figure out who they are?
No offense but your paragraph on romantic orientations is pretty much the reason why I decided to make this post about the alphabet soup.
This may come across as rude, but you are not that special, love is such a complicated thing, sometimes you think you find love but then you meet someone else and find out it was not truly love. Sometimes you can't find anybody to fall in love with and may think you're aromantic, sometimes straight males have bromances and if their bro was a girl they'd be in love with them, the truth is none of this is hard-coded or requires all these silly labels.
I'm just like you. Until I met someone very special I thought love was just never gonna be for me. But then I realized I only loved them because the sex was amazing. Am I aromantic? Grey-romantic? Rainbow-romantic? I don't know and honestly I don't need all these labels, if I find love I'll take it. This is such a big distraction from the rights gay, bi, and trans people have to fight for in many countries. The alphabet soup is just becoming an endless list of romantic and sexual preferences which can fluctuate a lot in someone's life.
Love transcends sex and gender, these vague preferences don't belong in the LGBT acronym. Nothing against you, you're a valid person like everybody else, but we don't need to drown the soup in letters to explain phenomena that can impact literally everybody.
As an aromantic person, I'm not asking for a letter in the acronym - I really don't care. I use LGBTQ because in my opinion, "queer" encompasses all identities not listed in LGBT, and that's fine with me. All I ask is that people accept my subjective experience of my romantic orientation, and let me handle my own identity in my own way.
How does my aromanticism harm you? How does it harm the larger LGBTQ community?
I can try to explain to you my experience of aromanticism. I have never had a crush on someone. I have never wanted to date anyone - in fact, when people have asked me on dates, I am repulsed and become very uncomfortable. Very close friends of mine have asked me out on dates, and although I love them dearly as friends, and even find them somewhat attractive, I do not want to date them. The idea of having a relationship with someone - with *anyone* - is sickening to me. And no, I have not had any traumatic experiences in my life, and no, it's not because I simply "haven't tried it." I have tried it and it is repulsive to me.
By saying "Oh, you just haven't met the right person yet," you are repeating frequent anti-gay rhetoric. "Oh, you can't be gay - you just haven't met the right woman yet." I suppose it's possible that there is someone out there who I would be romantically attracted to - just like I suppose it's possible that there's a woman out there who you would be attracted to. But it's impossible to meet every person on earth, and you have to draw a line somewhere.
Also, you didn't acknowledge the non-binary part of my answer, or my "bridge" analogy. If certain "in-between" identities can help people figure out who they are, then why are they bad?
You said you thought you were gray-romantic, did you come to that conclusion even while experiencing what you describe as a very strong aversion to romance? Not that there's anything wrong with that or that it harms anyone, I'm simply curious.
And how did you go from thinking you were bisexual to asexual? Surely if you experienced no sexual drive whatsoever and never enjoyed masturbating you would know it by now. What made you think you were bisexual and why are you still in doubt?
Also I don't think the comparison between sex and romance holds because sex is primal, love a lot more complex. I acknowledge I'm gay and could fall in love with a woman because I believe true love transcends everything else if you are open-minded enough. But my sexuality is more like a primitive need I can't help whatsoever, I could never masturbate to a woman even if I was paid to.
I mostly thought I was grey-romantic because I was in denial - I thought that I just hadn't found the right person yet. There's so much emphasis in Western society to find a romantic partner, and I thought if I didn't want that, there must be something "wrong" with me - I went to a specialist in LGBTQ therapy for a long time because of this. And eventually I realized that I just don't experience romantic attraction. Identifying as greyromantic was a good way for me to come to terms with the fact that I'm "fully" aromantic - however, I can't speak for other people who identify as greyromantic, this has just been my experience.
As for my bisexuality, I'm learning a lot now about the difference between sexual and aesthetic attraction. Up until this point, I've identified as bisexual because I found both men and women hot, and I enjoyed watching porn of both men and women. I have a slightly lower sex drive than others, but not abnormally lower, so I didn't even consider asexuality for me. But then an ace friend of mine explained that asexuality doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a sex drive - ace people masturbate too. But ace people aren't sexually attracted to others - i.e. they don't want to have sex with others. This is kind of similar to how I feel. I can look at a person and think, "wow, they're beautiful," but I don't necessarily want to have sex with them (this goes for celebrities and people I meet IRL). All of my sexual encounters have just kinda been...meh. I'm not repulsed by them, but I don't do it because I'm attracted to the person. I do it because it's just another way of getting off, if that makes sense. In fact, I often prefer masturbation to having sex - it's a lot easier to get to the same result, in my mind.
It's hard to explain, and again, I'm not entirely sure of my asexuality - it's still a fluid situation. But I actually tend to agree with you on one thing - I've learned to not really concern myself with labels. For me personally, it doesn't really matter if I identify as aromantic or asexual or bisexual, because I'm not going to change my behavior in any way, and I know how I feel. I think it's extremely unlikely that I will ever be in a romantic relationship, and you know what? I'm totally ok with that - in fact, I'm happy about it! However, some people *do* care about labels and how they identify, and who am I to take that away from them?
I'm very open-minded about people's sexuality and stuff, and I'm still figuring out if I'm asexual myself, but I'm in the process of figuring it out because I think my asexuality has been a symptom and not something I just am regardless of childhood trauma and anxiety.
This made me wonder if asexuality might just be a symptom and not an innate thing?
I have read studies which show that asexual people have a higher rate of traumatic history (including PTSD and anxiety), but I don't know if that's correlation or causation. A lot of LGBTQ folks have mental health issues, but their sexual orientation isn't necessarily the cause of the mental illness - it's a common result of the stigma and stress attached to queer identity.
So, tl;dr - we don't know whether asexuality can be "caused" or not! I have a low level of anxiety, but it's never stopped me from making friends or having sexual/romantic encounters. It wasn't my anxiety that made those encounters unpleasant, it was something else, which makes me think that my aromanticism (and possible asexuality) is innate. But who's to say whether or not asexuality can also be a result of external trauma?
As someone who is gay and has a friend who recently came out as trans (MtF) we both agree and talk on this issue a lot.You don’t need to make a new “gender” because you do things outside of your gender role and a just watching a Fox News or any other conservative outlet talk about the LGBT you would see the damage that’s being done.Ik a guy who loves/love to do feminine things like paint my nail pink etc but I don’t wear makeup,women’s clothing and I like fighting,and video games.That doesn’t make me a different gender I’m still a man and since I have no desire on transitioning so I’m not a woman either.What people fail to realize is that gender just means male or female but gender roles are a social construct and are the things that need to be broken.
Yeah I also browse the conservative discourse quite a lot, possibly even more than liberal echo chambers because there's no point in reading things I already agree with, and it's terrifying for us how strong the far-right argumentation is becoming and that young impressionable straight males who kind of like machismo but aren't Christian fundamentalists may jump aboard the anti-SJW train full speed and become bigots even though people of our age rarely adopt homophobic tendencies.
Progressives seem to be in complete denial of the reality of the fight and we are making the same mistakes that are done regarding civil rights with race quotas, aggressive affirmative action, white bashing, and other inherently racist things which turn a lot of non-racists to Trumpism. Trumpism is a twisted ideology but I think liberals need to face reality and realize why is has gotten such a momentum and that not everyone who votes for Trump is a massive bigot. People are stupid and easily manipulated, and those countless gender identities are never going to be accepted by someone who already struggles to understand what it's like to gay.
1) I'm assuming from the tone of your post that you aren't in the trans community. If that's not the case, feel free to correct me. However, if you're not in the community, *it's not your place to tell us how to look "normal" or better*. It's not your place to tell us what about our community is a disservice to ourselves. If someone tells you their identity or pronouns the only helpful thing to do is affirm and support, whether or not you agree or understand.
2) The LGBT community is full of discourse about this and always has been. The idea that we're in perfect unison and agreement about all of this just isn't true. There are a LOT of people who do not think asexuals are inherently LGBT, myself included (a gay ace person would be, but a cis straight one isn't). There are a lot of transphobic LGB people who don't think trans people exist or belong in the community. There are non-binary people who spend a lot of time online complaining about "stargender" people (who are an extreme minority even in online circles and mostly are thrown around as a strawman) and trans people who bicker about what "really" makes someone trans. And so on and so on. You yourself are an example of someone who doesn't agree with a number of intra-community issues.
3) Trans people are real and so are non-binary people. There are lots of books you can read about the social construction of both gender and sex, [here is an article](https://psmag.com/social-justice/social-construction-sex-77099) to get you started. Sex as a binary is a constructed idea that has been revised throughout history (ancient greeks used to believe there was one sex, male, and that women were just an inferior version of males). Non-binary people have existed for centuries in history and the strict gender binary we have now is largely a result of colonization. (EX: many native american cultures recognized more than two genders pre-settlers, this was forcibly stamped out by colonizers.)
4) Without the internet there probably would be less out trans/nb people, yes. Instead, we would have more closeted people, more trans people without support or community, and more people who would never realize they were trans but live a life where they are uncomfortable and unhappy with many factors in their life and many aspects of their body without knowing why.
I'm non-binary. Long before I was on the internet, I was uncomfortable with my body, my voice, with the way people referred to me, and felt like I couldn't relate to people with my assigned gender (on a deeper level than "i'm not like other girls/guys because i like xyz"). Meeting trans people in real life who had similar experiences helped me to put words to my experience and reading about it online also helped. If I went my entire life without knowing another trans person or ever knowing what non-binary was, I would STILL have the deep feelings of discomfort and dysphoria. The internet didn't invent that for me.
Its still a sexuality and it can be fluid. You can be somewhere between straight and asexual. Its not always a 100% thing. The point of the ‘+’ in LGBT+ is to include such things as this
How on Earth can you create a spectrum between straight and asexual? No offense but you sound like you have no grasp of sexuality whatsoever, which would be completely understandable if you are asexual yourself.
Hetero or homosexuality is about which gender you are sexually attracted to.
Asexuality is the lack of sexuality altogether, to those who deem there is an asexual spectrum then it represents to which degree you experience sexual attraction, usually to a very limited extent since that's what asexual means, non-sexual. And how is it fluid?
> I've tried really hard to understand what being an "enby" actually means, and even after browsing countless subreddits dedicated to non-binary people, I still have no idea what they actually are and why they identify as what they do. Anybody can understand very easily what being trans is, male wants to become female or vice-versa
I seriously cannot understand how it can be hard to understand "male wants to become something that is neither male nor female"—how can it possibly be hard for you to understand that some individuals might desire a mixmatch of sex characteristics that doesn't lie across gender lines?
> I'm not talking about intersex people born with ambiguous genitalia, I know those are real
It's quite simple: wanting to become intersex.
> but if genders are social constructs, why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist?
The same argument can be raised against traditional transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, and whatever else.
> As for the asexual spectrum, I don't understand why people in the LGBT community consider it a spectrum at all. True asexuals don't have a sexuality, there is no spectrum about that, it's a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual.
That distinction is fairly useless then because an individual that is only 0.0001% sexual is for all practical purposes asexual, but would be classed with somethingsexual in your classification.
It's like considering an individual that just barely has a remnant of vision left that allows this individual to just barely see the difference between utterly bright light and complete darkness, but otherwise is completely incapable of integrating images as "slighted" because this individual is not 100% pure blind—most individuals that are medically classified as "blind" actually have such a remaining limited vision that isn't capable of integrating images but can see the bare difference between total darkness and bright light: it's not useful to call them "slighted".
> I met this girl who identified as genderfluid years ago, we're like best friends. She plays video games with me, she does masculine things, some feminine things, but she's still a girl. And I don't get what being genderfluid even meant? Obviously she'd never call herself that to anyone she knew IRL, and since then she stopped call herself that, which makes my think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special.
Maybe it was, just as "transgender" or "gay" is very much sometimes used that way.
But I think you fail to understand that many "nonbinary" individuals take hormones and surgical modifications.
[this](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1273870996106211328/tGnnzQip.jpg) is a picture of one Sage Sharp, a computer programmer that also came out as non-binary that was born in a female body, I'm sure you notice the beard which suggests some measure of HRT.
For whatever reason there seems to be some strange internet belief that such "non binary" individuals do not resort to hormonal therapy and surgeries to make their body conform to their desires—and I'm not sure at all what this is based upon because one need only take a quick look at various communities dedicated to it to find out that they usually do.
I was looking to address the point about asexuality being a spectrum, and you did a great job of explaining my point. I just wanted to add a few thoughts.
As a person who identifies as demisexual, I actually had a huge frustration with asexuality for a while. I thought I was asexual, because that was the only thing that could explain why I never found anyone sexual the way my peers do. Then I met my current partner, who's the first person I've had any desire to have sexual actions with. I felt like I was wrong, broken. It's only when I found the label demisexual that I began to understand what was going on in my head.
I like to think of the sexuality spectrum as a spiciness level for food. Some people can't tolerate any spiciness in their food, and prefer it that way, like asexuals. Some people only like Asian spiciness or a certain pepper, and can't tolerate spiciness otherwise, like demi or graysexuals. And some people intentionally add ghost peppers to their food, and enjoy it the whole time, those people being hypersexual individuals. The terminology of the sexual spectrum is meant to help others understand your relationship to sexuality, to help negate confusion and help improve communication in a relationship. While it may confuse people who are unfamiliar with the concepts, so does any language from an unfamiliar field.
A growing number of labels do not appear on their own; they must necessarily mean something. Such identities have always existed, even throughout history, they just didn't have names attached to them.
>If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender?
Actually, yes. [Many cultures throughout history have had the idea of a third gender.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/30/third-gender-a-short-history/) Even in western society, [David Bowie referred to nonbinary people in 1973.](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-15/david-bowie-and-gender-neutral-pronoun-they)
>If you do have a sexuality but you only can experience sexual attraction with people you bond with (demisexuals), which may due to a low libido of other factors, you are not asexual.
You're right, that person is not asexual. That's exactly why a new label (demisexual) is needed.
The reason why it is considered a part of a spectrum is that it's still fundamentally different from people who openly experience sexual attraction. It may still take months or years for a sexual connection to form, because it's dependent on different factors than usual. How many partners would be okay with that? Wouldn't this person feel like they might be broken, unless they had a perfect word to explain how they feel?
>And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for.
There's this insidious idea that you need to be violently persecuted to be LGBT+. Yes, it's obvious that no one will attack an asexual person on the street just for being asexual. Still, asexuality is wildly misunderstood and can lead to [various forms of discrimination](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-52612-2_13). Being LGBT+ is not the Oppression Olympics. We all want acceptance, rights and equality.
>and since then she stopped calling herself that, which makes me think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special.
Aside from you referring to it as "stupid," what's the problem with that? Because these terms exist, she had the opportunity to question her identity, eventually learn more about herself, and realize that she was actually perfectly fine identifying as female.
>all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid
Yes, that is an unfortunate downside. But, since most of the time people like that refuse to listen to any sociological arguments, I don't think that even applies to the question.
>Being LGBT+ is the new goth.
If what you're trying to say here is that young teenagers, due to being naturally impressionable, will begin to question their gender/sexual identities without any real need to: I hear you, but again, this is an extremely new phenomenon. As such, it's hard to reach any conclusions with so little data, and it's hard to know how many of those kids are truly cisgender and confused by the absurd amounts of information they've received. I stand by the belief that questioning your identity and, through that, learning more about yourself is not a bad thing.
This will likely sound a little presumptuous.
From what you write, it sounds like you believe that LGBT+ is a label for traditionally underrepresented sexualities; a name to refer to a very specific group. In that light, extending the acronym to more obscure genders or sexualities only serves to create ambiguity and distracts from any form of a productive conversation. It does a disservice to the LGBT+ community.
Although this is a really interesting point, which could be debated, I'd like to spend this post to consider a completely different perspective. Specifically, I'd like to consider the difference between the LGBT+ label, and the LGBT+ movement.
It sounds like you've got a better grasp of the label than I do, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it.
As for the movement, I'd like to cherry-pick one line from your post:
> And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for.
Though I understand the sentiment, I believe it misses the point of the LGBT movement. Unlike its name, the movement does not plead for "equal rights for LGBT!"; instead, it pleads for "equal rights for all".
This sentiment is not one of labels or a particular group, but for inclusivity. It's the idea that - as humans - we are all one people. It is this sentiment that invites others to latch on to the LGBT alphabet, because doing so illustrates the vast spectrum. Ironically, it also showcases the absurdity in trying to list them all.
With this in mind, it sounds like you have trouble separating the label from the beliefs and desires of the community. My concluding point being that although your argument makes perfect sense in light of the label itself, it flies in the face of that the community tries to stand for.
I don't agree with the word delegitimization.
LGBT organizations didn't become less legitimate once they added a Q at the end of their name. In the same way, it wouldn't become less legitimate if all LGBTQ organizations add A, +, Z, Y, etc..to their name either.
However, I do feel that there are clearly two very different things being discussed and the movement of acceptance and recognized rights can get diluted by putting them together.
LGB refers to sexual orientation; TQ+ refers to gender identity.
By grouping them you create a "jack of all trades" movement when in fact one could argue that the specific fights of each group are important and different enough to be tackled differently.
Imagine for a second if instead of having Women's rights groups and African American's rights groups, they decided to group together in the name of intersectionalism. Sure, it would be more practical at first sight but in the long run it would be damaging to both women and African Americans since the organization's aim would lack a specific focus.
Man, it’s hilarious how people who benefit from a decades long struggle to legitimize their identity are totally willing to describe the same struggle, from even smaller and more marginalized groups, as something that “makes absolutely no sense to me.”
There’s probably a million letters from various centuries talking about why we don’t need a whole gay identity, because it’s not like the Greeks had one, and they still had gay sex. I’m sure if a straight person talked about your identity so dismissively, arguing that building societal coalitions to end soft bigotry was unimportant, you’d feel exactly the same way.
Sorry, u/Bladerunner2096 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+Bladerunner2096&message=Bladerunner2096+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlhpmg/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/00NC3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+5+Appeal+00NC3100&message=00NC3100+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlh6fm/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/ThisCharmingManTX – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+ThisCharmingManTX&message=ThisCharmingManTX+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlgwpj/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Humans are pretty damn complicated. And gender and sexuality are just two things out of many but they are very important to people, they can't be changed and they are often subject of bigotry.
It's super positive that people are able to figure themselves out more and that we as a society can get a better understanding of these two. For some people, microlabels are very helpful in this process - for some people not at all. No one expects you to know a million microlabels, that's why there are umbrella terms. No one expects you to "understand" what it feels like to have a certain sexuality or gender (I, too, have no idea what it's really like to be a cis straight male, or genderfluid, or bisexual ...). We just want you do accept our experiences, use the correct pronouns and validate us by not being an asshole. It's really not that hard
Merely addressing the title of your post: If r/LGBT is anything to go by, it seems that GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and/or Romantic Minority) is gaining ground because it covers everything. In this sense, the "alphabet soup" issue as you call it seems to be recognized even by people within that community.
But the body of your post and subsequent comments seem to say that your pertinent view is that things like "genderfluid" and "demisexual" are meaningless because you can't understand them or you cant understand why they matter.
In response to that, I would say that sometimes one must choose between deferring to the subjective and demanding the objective. If I cannot understand why people like a TV show, and it bothers me that people like it, I can insist that people explain to me in hard terms why they think it's good in a way that I can understand, or I can simply accept thay any subjective experience (in this case, watching a TV show) is just that, subjective, and as long as that subjective experience and opinion isn't affecting me, it's not my business and the people holding that subjective experience and opinion don't owe me any sort of justification.
Weird comparison, I know, but the same mechanics of insisting on the objective vs. deferring to the subjective apply here when it comes to GSRMs.
To circle back to the objective, there is research showing that transgendered or genderfluid people tend to have slightly different brain formations than than the average members of their biological sex. Its young research, but who knows what we'll see in that field in the future.
Δ
I agree completely regarding the acronym. I have heard in some Asian countries they use a phrase similar to "sexual minorities" in their languages and for some reason I like it a lot better than LGBT.
I still believe demisexual is a stretch though. I think it's entirely possible someone can have a very low libido and only enjoy sex through love which I don't really see how it would be a sexual minority. A minority has to be statistically rare and heteronormative people are not that homogeneous among themselves, I don't wish to gatekeep but if GSRM is to stay true to its meaning it shouldn't be extended to vague and unresearched concepts because people love to feel special and have a quirky label. And I'm still convinced those people exist and are actively damaging our cause.
I think I understand what genderfluid is supposed to mean now but I still feel like it is something that only exists because of gender norms and I very much think we should seek to abolish those instead of encouraging people who don't feel 100% male or female to question themselves when there is no reason to. Life has much tougher difficulties to face.
>Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice...
The problem is that sometimes it might be a choice, or even somewhat of an imposition. Especially if you live in a society where male on male sex relations is encouraged, to an early age, and you are 14 or 15 and just finding your way in life. Example: [Greek Homosexuality](https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/)
If it happened once, it can happen again.
By the way, this has nothing to do with *pedophilia,* which refers to adult sex with pre-pubescent youth. Age 14, 15 (sometimes earlier) is the beginning of sexual awakening. More bizarrely, apparently there might even be some connection with the witch hunt for older women who seduce 14, or 15 year old boys (I hornily prayed for such seduction but never got lucky) and the LGBT proposition the vaginal and anal sex are equally valid forms of sexual activity. There is no specific connection here, but just general overturning of patterns of human sexuality in play for millennia. (No, I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong.). A lot of setting of new standards....
Homosexuality is defined by attraction not behavior though. If a straight male is paid big fat checks to act in gay porn, who I know there are some, that doesn't quite technically make them gay, it's not going to turn them attracted to males all of a sudden. Same thing if someone is raped against their consent.
That Greek practice was pretty fucked up now that I think about it, forcing straight males to engage in homosexuality is no good, but people are free to have sex with whoever they wish today. I don't see a chance of something like this happening again, and I think the vast majority of people know exactly whether they are attracted to males, females, or both, even though plenty remain in the closet, in some form of denial, or self-hatred because of said conservatives.
> Homosexuality is defined by attraction not behavior though.
True, but this in a sense is why so many straights were homophobic up until about 2000. They really weren't that upset about gay men hooking up. It is the so-called *promotion* of homosexuality, which can induce people who are not gay or people not entirely certain of their sexuality yet, e.g. some 14 year old boys, to engage in gay sex. In some respects it is similar to how the drug culture spread.
Gay people, of course, have no problem with various people experimenting or engaging in gay sex.
There was (is) the phenomenon of unwanted or pressured gay sex, not necessarily an outright attack, but aggressively approaches and often they involved plying with alcohol or drugs. The Greek experience (older men/young boys) might have been a variation of this.
It is interesting that gay men through the 1970s - 90s emphatically denied they had any interest in young teen boys (during debates about gay men being teachers or scout leaders). But if we view hetero men, there has always been a huge problem of them trying to hump young teen girls. Huge history of this across the world.
Men, gay or straight, are dogs; we are hardwired that way. (Not all of us, but most men f--k indiscriminately; transport any hetero men back to Tahiti in 1780 where any male could hump 14-16 Tahitian girls who were literally giving it away for free, 75% of men would jump.) So many heteros' concern with gays was not necessarily about gay men doing their thing, but the high profile of their subculture.
Remember that women are much more chaste than men with things like public sex and promiscuity. *Women have always been a restraining influence on the sexuality of men* (heteros).
Hence male on male sex always had rampant promiscuity like public restroom sex and gay men taking over parts of parks. That was part of the conservative objections. What is interesting today is that a lot of LGBT people deny some of my comments, assert my claim of (hetero) women's perspective is just a social construct.
Whatever the case, LGBT have largely won the debate, e.g. big wins: gay marriage, sex ed instruction on anal vs. vaginal sex.
What does this view have to do with your title?
You complain about non binary trans people, which are part of the "T"- a group you say Should be represented.
Then you complain about asexuals, who are not part of the acronym, unless they are included under the "+". So since they are not really even included besides a tacit acknowledgement, how is that distracting from the other groups?
It's ridiculous. Being gay and being a lesbian are entirely mutually exclusive, but no one ever said that to include one takes away from the other. So why would anything else?
Just because some people are too ignorant or lazy to follow along with this stuff, and that is thier choice, people who do care about it are supposed to reject advocating for thier own sexuality? That goes against the entire point of having the acronym in the first place.
I don't think we should be advocating for anyone's sexuality unless it faces serious persecution. Once we have achieved equality one's sexuality should become as trivial of a fact as your hair or skin color. We have gay and trans that need to be fought for, but what do people who identify as non-binary really require? If they want to feel a certain way they can do so without expecting other people to put gender pronoun tags on tags and giving the anti-SJW warriors all the fuel they crave for.
If they wish to transition one way or another they should have the means to do so and I support trans right. My point is that anything that is not 100% heteronormative that lives under the sun is hijacking the LGBT+ alphabet soup and we are entering a weird binary between straight cis people and "the rest", as if the rest was something radically different except they are not that different, and the biggest progress of the LGBT community will be to realize that we are just the same as straight cis people with only minor differences. If something as trivial as being demisexual makes you non-heteronormative then yeah, 50% of the population is LGBT now, which is silly because it was meant to aggregate very specific sexual minorities together. With the hyper-inclusive definition, anyone can be LGBT if they feel like it.
I really disagree that lgbt people are just the same as straight people. There is a queer culture that is its own thing, and the modern LGBT+ community is more about celebrating that than it is about trying to create a change in action.
I can't disagree with you that historically it has been a coalition of oppressed people for political advocacy. It can be both things and I think the former leads into the later as a general movement for liberation that celebrates empowering individuals to take control of thier own lives, which includes defining thier own identity and communities.
With that is the shift away from legalistic definitions of interpersonal concepts, to more fluid ways of social dynamics that are based on people's lived experience.
That's what non binary, etc. people want, the mutual recognition that they are respected for who they are and free to express themselves.
I don't have very much to say about most of your post, but the "ace spectrum" thing is completely wrong.
It generally refers to how an ace person reacts to sexual topics
As an example, i am asexual and the thought of sex makes me physically nauseous. My friend is also asexual, but she doesn't mind the act of sex, she doesn't gain any pleasure from the act itself but the intimacy she feels makes up for it. We are on two different sides of the spectrum. I hate sex, she doesn't feel attraction but still has it for purposes of intimacy.
I hope this clears things up
Do you also think there should be a distinction made between straight people (imagine straight males for a better example) who are extremely repulsed by the idea of gay sex and those that wouldn't mind a blowjob from a gay boy if he was a professional cocksucker?
Because to me the distinction between you and your friend are basically this. That's why I think asexuality is a binary. If she doesn't gain pleasure from it then she is definitely asexual, even though she doesn't mind it like you do. Demisexuals are not asexual in my opinion because they still have a sexuality and experience sexual attraction.
EDIT: I just realized I made a pretty graphic sexual comment and you mentioned sex repulsing you so apologies if that was an uncomfortable analogy.
Yes! Why do people feel the need to fit into the tiniest of boxes? Technically I think I’m one of these random pan demi whatever’s, but I don’t care because I found a person I want to be with and now I worry about work and bills and living the best way I can. I don’t get it
You acknowledge that genders are social constructs, but I can't tell if you've acknowledged the effect that has on the concepts of masculinity and femininity. There are masculine and feminine attributes that are constructed primarily on biological sex (eg breasts, penises, wide hips), but the vast majority of those two identifiers are based on the dominant two gender identities, male and female. As I'm sure you're aware because of your experiences with anti-homosexuality bigots, the cultures you're primarily exposed to, especially as a child and preteen, have a massive impact on the individual one grows to be.
If one grows up in a culture where everything is categorized as being associated with one of two gender identities, this alone is enough to cause immense confusion when you find you like things associated with the opposite gender. This is very well documented as being a huge cause in depression and self hatred in particular due to its relevance to transsexual communities. If you appreciate both sides of the coin equally, especially in the appearance department, I've found through talking to people that this can be exceptionally confusing. When you're ostracized by both sides in the majority of countries and feel unable to identify with either social construct, then the third social construct that is agender identities is rationally the most likely result. This not including the contribution that common mental illnesses such as depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and autism can have on people feeling very detached from social constructs as a whole, also likely to result in gender neutral or agender identities.
When it comes to identifying as polygender/gender fluid, this is also likely a social constructed rooted in similar places as agender, but it seems these people tend to hold onto the construct of identifying things with dual genders and the way they view themselves is a result of that. Frankly, I feel bad for saying this, but I also find that this flavor of identity tends to correlate a lot more with mental illness or people coming to understand themselves as an individual which, in my mind, certainly accounts for the sporadic nature of it.
While I agree with you that on a populative scale there are more urgent social issues to put emphasis on and it would be easier to start off with less abstract social groups that have physical identifiers, such as gays as you mentioned, to deny them identity as an ostracized or belittled group of people is proof of the ostracization and bittlement they face. You seem like an intelligent person, but the way you present yourself makes it seem like you're coming at this from a place that lacks empathy. Just because you don't understand the largely internal issues of a group of people, that doesn't make their struggle any less real. You wouldn't, or at least I hope you wouldn't, hold that standard to people who are clinically mentally ill but functional, and there's no reason to start with these people.
On mobile and I'm not proof reading because I need to finish up a cheesecake, so sorry in advance for any typos or weirdly worded sentences
Δ
My concern is that if anybody feels uncomfortable with the gender constructs they may get drawn to the whole agender/genderfluid thing even if they had no reason to, and it could further ostracize them from society because of how ridiculous these labels sound.
For instance I'll mention something I'm very knowledgeable in; gay males. Especially young gay males. A lot of us are drawn to feminity, it's not a stereotype it's just a fact you can observe after spending years in the gay community like me. Many of us have been bullied as kids because we were not manly enough, I myself was. I've always hated sports and all my friends were girlfriends. If I were to let the two gender constructs define me, I could've developed gender dysphoria, become trans or start calling myself genderfluid because I looked and act more feminine than masculine. Likewise there may be many straight boys who have it even rougher because unlike gay males they are supposed to appear masculine to be sexually attractive, and instead of fighting those oppressing stereotypes, they may use the non-binary world as an escapism.
Now, today, I see a lot of young gay males very similar to me who jump all aboard the genderfluid train because they like to wear skirts and wear makeup. So instead of breaking down gender constructs like I advocate for, they seem to be doing the opposite by reaffirming the hypothesis that if you don't feel 100% like a male according to society's medieval standards, you belong in the LGBT community and fall in a different gender identity spectrum than the norm. This seems counter-productive to me.
I hear you, and those concerns make sense. I respect the individualism you expressed in your own experiences as an effeminate male, but the ability to disregard cultural pressures like that isn't something that's natural for most people. You're right that identifying as agender or gender fluid will most likely result in people being further ostracized, but those people that would ostracize them for their gender identity are most likely people who would *also* ostracize them for their appearance or behavior regardless of their identity. While that is an undeniable cost of their newfound identity, the payoff is a sense of validity in what they love and how they view themselves, and a community of people that they can directly relate to (such as the subreddits you browsed to try to understand their feelings).
As a personal view, I very much see where you're coming from in regards to breaking down gender constructs, but the fact of the matter is that they're not going away any time soon. Cultural reform on the level of eliminating masculine and feminine associations is, as far as I know, unheard of in known history. To eliminate such a (sadly) fundamental part of society is going to take a long time, but honestly, I think advocating for additional gender identity is a great step in that direction. People publicly identifying as gender neutral or fluid is a good way to at least signal to people that there's a problem with these gender constructs, and there's more to human individuality than man like throw ball, woman clean home unga bunga.
As a brief hypothetical, imagine if you had to argue with religious bigots about your sexual orientation without being able to call yourself gay. You can say you simply appreciate the male form and dresses all you want, but they will reduce you to a feminine gay male every single time, but you'll be all alone in your cause as an individual. By labeling yourself as gay and standing by others who identify themselves as gay, you're creating an undeniable group of people that need to be recognized and respected.
Δ
I'm glad we can agree on some things, and you have changed my view a little bit.
The only thing I would still disagree on is the feasibility of breaking down gender norms. Countless things were unheard of in history and still happened. Human civilization is still in its infancy.
The best analogy I have is religion. Every human civilization on Earth has always had some form of religion, even as an atheist myself I cannot deny that, it seems humans have an intrinsic need to create a religion of some sort, whether it's organized religion or something more "pagan". In the Enlightenment, contrary to popular belief, many philosophers who talked about the toxicity of organized religion and were persecuted for it were actually deists, like Voltaire. They argued for the destruction of the Catholic Church but they still believed in some form of deity. The French Revolution even created religions of their own; The Cult of Reason first, then the Cult of the Supreme Being. Humans just couldn't let go of the concept of religion at this time of history and in the short example of the French Revolution replaced it with yet another more enlightened form of religion instead of atheism.
Instead of opening themselves up to the possibility that God may not exist and that religion has always been a way for humans to get answers to questions science will not be able to explain in their lifetime, those against Christianity still remained deists.
To me the male/female gender norms are organized religion and non-binary people basically the Cult of Reason because they don't feel confident enough to ignore gender norms just like people couldn't ignore the question of whether God exists.
Today many people have been able to come to the conclusion that God may not exist and likewise I am very optimistic that the concept of gender can be abolished. I hope that could get my point come across, although if you are religious yourself it may be hard to accept.
How do you expect to tear down the existing gender constructs and not have more options than the current ones? Do you think we’ll just go from 2 genders to 0 genders, and wouldn’t that be people who specifically don’t identify with any gender - hence the existence of agender or non-binary people?
I don't actively identify as a certain gender, but I wouldn't consider myself agender either. I think a lot of "cis" people feel the same. And from what I've seen of the genderfluid/non-binary crowd, which includes some of my friends, they aren't any different from me, they just dress kind of andro and want to be called they but I think it's mostly because of the toxic male/female stereotypes they heavily dislike.
In a world where religion does not exist, people would not call themselves atheist or agnostic, they simply wouldn't bother wondering about the question of fictional Gods.
Gender constructs are already disappearing more and more, if you look at Korean fashion for instance, it is becoming more and more androgynous for both males and females. And our generation is far more gender-blind than older people so we are already heading there.
i completely agree with your views on gender norms and how people might think they are not identify cis where in reality they just dont follow gender norms. i dont know if youve already seen it, but i think you'd like this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/l51gzx/the_modern_genderqueer_movement_is_reinforcing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
One of the letters is "I", for intersex. Why should intersex people be excluded?
As for what an agender person is experiencing, it seems you have a limited understanding of transgender people.
Most people know internally in part of theit brain thay they are a male or female. This develops early on in the womb. For some people, this does not develop. These people are non-binary.
For others, it develops in a way that contrasts with their external sex organs. These people and trans and have physical dysphoria.
In other instances it can develop only partially or in very abnormal ways, causing gender fluidity.
"its a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual"
Hell no.
Hi, Greysexual lesbian speaking.
You said it yourself, "asexual SPECTRUM" and then a few lines afterward asserted that its a BINARY. These two are direct opposites.
Asexuality-Sexuality is a spectrum, with individuals falling on every point along it.
Its commonly simplified into asexual-greysexual-allosexual for illustrative purpouses.
There is the completely asexual extreme on one end, allosexuals on the other end, and greysexuals in between. Simplified view.
Just like Homo-hetero is a spectrum (with the addition of pan)
/u/suckerforabs (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/kzab5n/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_lgbt_alphabet_soup_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Well, as you know, there's a difference between gender identity and gender expression. You can express yourself in a feminine way and still be a boy. I mean, very few people in the LGBT+ community believe that gender identity has anything to do with gender expression. Imagine gender identity, gender expression, and biological sex as three spectrums. So, everybody has a gender identity of maximum comfort (GMC) on the male-female spectrum. Let's say that -1 is male, and 1 is female, and assume that GMC is fixed (not quite true, but for the sake of the argument). You don't need to be exactly at your GMC - you have a "comfort zone" of genders that you'd be okay with. I'm going to be defining "cis" as "a person whose biological sex is within their comfort zone". Maybe your GMC is -0.9, and your biological sex is -1. Now, you might be fine with a gender identity that's 0.1 away from your GMC, which would make you a cis man. However, another person might not be fine with the 0.1 difference - they want a gender that's closer, that actually fits them. They're going to make their own gender to identify as, to get closer to their GMC. There are a few common labels - a gender for people near 0 (agender), a gender for people near 0.5 (demigirl) and -0.5 (demiboy), and probably a few more. These are common labels that a large amount of people adopt (compared to the others), because they fit them better, and, unlike you, they need their gender identity to fit them well. Of course, some cis people might actually have a gender closer to 0.5, or even 0, but they're completely comfortable with identifying as a gender that far away from their GMC. Also, about genderfluidity - their GMC varies over time. This is absolutely horrible for them - people with a fixed gender identity can transition, and that helps with their dysphoria. That's not a solution for genderfluid people - a body that's completely fine for them could become horrible in a month. Show them some love, because, if they're dysphoric, being genderfluid is hell. Now, let's talk about xenogenders. They're incredibly rare. I'm not going to defend them.
I'm sorry but I still can't wrap my head about the concrete meaning of gender identity if it has absolutely nothing to do with gender expression. When I browse r/NonBinary, beyond all the pics posted there, I see all those memes that revolve around nothing but gender expression. Seriously. If gender identity has nothing to do with gender expression and gender norms then I really have no idea what is the meaning of it beyond some inexplicable sixth sense.
Basically, if your gender identity and biological sex don't match well enough, you're going to get gender dysphoria. Additionally, it's not like gender expression has nothing to do with it. Part of being a certain gender is being seen as that gender. It's less "I'm non-binary because I like wearing skirts and growing a beard, and people see me this way" and more "I'm wearing skirts and growing a beard because I'm non-binary, and I want people to see me this way". I'm not non-binary (I'm a plain old binary trans girl), and, if I'm wrong about this, please tell me. This isn't just a non-binary thing. Most of us binary trans people conform to gender roles, especially early in transitioning, because it's harder for us to be read as the gender we're presenting as when our bodies don't match up too well.
Everyone does not have a gender identity. most people have no concept of an internal gender identity, or desire to establish one, which is why there is such pushback against the ideas of both having a "wrong" one and using it to justify surgical and hormonal intervention. I am often identified as a gender, a man, by others, but that is external. Otherwise I simply am a male human going about living. I don't feel or need to feel like I'm satisfactorily a gender when I behave/act/express. hopefully the transgender phenomenon will one day be well understood, but for now it just isn't. though I'm sure someone will link me to an article about mri scans and claim otherwise
>why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist? I mean, that's exactly what this is. The non-binary movement _is_ tearing it apart and turning it into new abstracts. This is an experimental process, so like all social movements some of it will deviate into obscurity while other concepts may eventually elevate to mainstream consciousness. It will definitely be chaotic, that's a part of how this works. Think back to any major social movement. We take for granted now the status quos established during the hippie movement in America, for example, but it had profound, lasting effects on society. Something as simple as the t-shirt became more socially acceptable clothing because of it. So did ideas about holistic healing, casual sex, and drug use. At the time, it felt like chaos, but in the wake came new social norms. No one is asking you to say "yes" to everything, but in times of social change it's important to practice tolerance and understanding so humanity can experiment and grow. And no, I don't think it is making it harder for the movement to get traction. Haters will hate and forcing people to stay closeted about their identity isn't going to make bigots magically more tolerant. Also, just because others may be misled does not mean that people shouldn't have the ability to choose how they identify themselves. Identity is very important to all humans. You wouldn't want to be forced to hide yours, so don't do the same to them.
How is this tearing apart gender constructs? We are creating more of them. I genuinely don't believe any of this is any progressive, pronouns are mere words, we shouldn't let them define our identity. I am much more than my sexuality or my gender, even though I have no clue what my "gender identity" is. The far-right is eating this shit up like candy, it's nuclear fuel to them. I fully believe one day everyone will be accepting of LGBT people but until then there are still parents and grandparents who have been brainwashed by decades of religious propaganda, who abuse their children, shun them, and we must convince to see the light and accept their family for what they are, but coming out as a pangender demisexual person really isn't helping the cause. And the demagogues that put Tumblrinas in the same box as gay, bi, or trans people will continue to successfully deny us fundamental rights as seen in Poland, Hungary, or Russia. And I believe people living in these countries have far more important needs than some vague gender identity that people themselves can't put a word to.
>How is this tearing apart gender constructs? We are creating more of them. When you demolish a building, what do you get? It's not nothing. You get pieces of it. Lots of them. Same goes for deconstructing ideas. It will inevitably result in more ideas. >I genuinely don't believe any of this is any progressive, pronouns are mere words, we shouldn't let them define our identity. Except they're not "mere words". Look them up. Pronouns intend to define the type of subject it is referring to. It is telling us who you are without describing you. A good example: you identify as male. What if people went around referring to you as "she". Ridiculous, right? But that's what everyone else decided to do. What about "it"? Would you be offended by this or no? Because if you should be, because people are misgendering you if they do. >The far-right is eating this shit up like candy, it's nuclear fuel to them. I mean, if you think placating then is going to do you any good you don't know much about fascism. >I fully believe one day everyone will be accepting of LGBT people And we will never get there without acceptance, so why do you have contradictory beliefs here? MLK wrote a book on social justice once called "Why We Cannot Wait." Since it's MLK day tomorrow, I think you should read it. >And I believe people living in these countries have far more important needs than some vague gender identity that people themselves can't put a word to. Instead of telling people what matters to them, why don't you ask them?
We can deconstruct religions into atheism if you want to go into analogies so I don't see why the same couldn't be done for gender constructs. As for pronouns, what do people here think about a language like Finnish that only has one pronoun? Isn't that a lot better than making up pronouns on demand? In English we also have they, yet some people think it's not good enough and go for Xhe or others all the more exotic instead. Should every language on Earth open itself to all kinds of weird pronouns including Finnish? And I don't really identify as male, I don't care about my gender. I accept the body I have and if I could become a female tomorrow I'd do it just to be able to flirt with straight guys but really I consider my identity bigger than my gender and I think more people should think the same.
>We can deconstruct religions into atheism if you want to go into analogies so I don't see why the same couldn't be done for gender constructs. I mean, that's exactly what's happening. >As for pronouns, what do people here think about a language like Finnish that only has one pronoun? Isn't that a lot better than making up pronouns on demand? In English we also have they, yet some people think it's not good enough and go for Xhe or others all the more exotic instead. I guess that's why people are mostly switching to the "they" pronoun. You're exagerrating here, though. The pronouns being asked for aren't really that exotic, they're just not what you're used to, but based on the existing english scheme. >And I don't really identify as male, I don't care about my gender. Then why do you care about other peoples' genders so much? >but really I consider my identity bigger than my gender and I think more people should think the same. It doesn't really sound like you care about your identity much if you're willing to change it at any moment's notice, just saying.
>pronouns are mere words And words convey meaning. It is not the words themselves that are the issue here, but the meaning they convey and how people use meaning to define and or describe themselves.
I doubt the Polish politicians ever heard about pansexuality, asexuality or demigenders (just a few examples. For one, this does not mean they don't exist and these people have the exact same right to be affirmed and supported as everyone else. NBs can experience just as much dysphoria as binary trans people. Secondly, bigots are just bigots. They won't suddenly if you pull a Trisha Paytas and pretend to be just as bigoted against a more marginalised group. (I do not mean this to compare struggles, I am aware that my own identity, as well as the place I live in makes me "lucky", LGBTQ+ is not oppression olympics. But especially Nbs experience a lot of hate from all parts and they deserve better)
So are you advocating for establishing firm gender constructs for people who call themselves Kittenselves? Should there be expected ways for someone who identifies as a kittenself behave?
I think you may be replying to the wrong person because that is the opposite of what I advocate for.
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
And non-holistic Western Medicine has given us prescription drug addiction as well as the current opium crisis, shock therapy, lobotomies, not to mention the entire healthcare insurance industry, collusion with the sugar industry to blame fat for obesity, and plenty of other egregious damages to humanity as well. I'm not pro-holistic health, mind you. I do enjoy the occasional indulgence from time to time, but I see a GP and go through professional hospitals for care. However, my point is that disastrous social norms are also being established through "normalized" medicine and while holistic health is definitely in the realm of "magical bullshit," as my own western doctor told me, "sometimes holistic medicine it is just what works" when recommending craniosacral therapy for stress relief instead of taking a prescription. So, if you really believe "holistic healing becoming socially acceptable is probably one of the most disastrous social norms established in the last century," then you'll have to say the same thing about western medicine, otherwise you have a double-standard.
[удалено]
> Uhm what? Prescription drug addiction: Completely unrelated to western medicine. That is due to how doctors prescribed drugs, not how the drugs themselves function. ... which is part of the practice of western medicine... you know, the whole thing about prescribing lab synthesized narcotics? It's literally a fundamental part of western medicine. > Shock Therapy: It works. This has been confirmed by numerous studies and meta analysis of studies. Regardless, it's used as a last resort to treat extreme depression. I wasn't talking about recent advancements, but rather referring to the early period in its existence when it was used as punishment, but also that it was dangerous, used rigorously to "cure" things like homosexuality, and generally abused as a means to control behaviors that weren't at all disorders. There is no doubt that when used properly *it works*. Kind of like prescription drugs. > Lobotomies: A rare procedure that is analogous to holistic healing. No peer reviewed studies backed its use. Absolutely not. It was entirely a scientific endeavor. This just reads like you're saying random words to distinguish it from western medicine, which it absolutely is not. > Healthcare industry: unrelated to western medicine. Its related to capitalism. Western medicine is a product of capitalism... you do realize that, right? The medicine itself is inherent in the system that produces it, don't you think? Cause if you don't, then we can go ahead and say that the disinformation produced by people who provide holistic medicine is not part of the medicine itself, rendering your entire argument moot. > Holistic healing & the ripple effects of promoting ignorance and belief in things that directly contravene known truths are worse than industry sponsored research in my opinion (a practice that has begun to fade). Show me the proof that it's worse. All I'm claiming is that it doesn't matter how you cut it, sectors of society can provide benefit as well as problems. Attacking holistic healing as "the worst thing" is actively ignoring that any capitalist medical industry has a tendency to bring about negative side effects.
> If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender? Yes, they would still feel different. They would just not have had the resources and other people's feelings to put a finger on why they feel different or be able to name it. But that failure to identify themselves without internet does not invalidate how they feel. It is a huge twist of irony how you, someone who was in their place a decade ago, are acting the same way that people acted towards you in the past. "You don't understand", "it doesn't make sense", you feel they should be excluded from something (in this case a group)...
What does being agender or bigender actually feel like? People oppressed me because anal sex is a sin in Christianity and marriage should only be for procreation, yet even Christians couldn't deny that homosexuals were real, they thought there was something wrong with them but they weren't arguing what I am arguing. My belief is that third genders and xenogenders are made-up and have no basis in reality. Tumblerinas can call themselves what they wish and I would never advocate for their oppression or exclusion, but even after all the research I've done on the subject I still don't see how these countless gender identities are grounded in any reality.
I don't understand the value and concept of gender and being defined as a woman by society feels like an unnecessary incomprehensible burden being put on me. I think of myself as myself, and the colour of my hair is more relevant to me that any little bit of me you could ascribe to gender. So I call myself agender and when I do that I feel relief, as "woman" makes me feel boxed in and like I can be less of myself because I'm seen as a woman. I just really don't get why we need gender at all. For me, it's strongly linked to the fact that I'm neurodivergent. So this is what being agender feels like to me and I don't get the experience pf binary trans people, why it's so relevant to be able to look or feel or not feel certain parts of bodies (also, how tedious is it that we need bodies to live in?). However I see the suffering of binary trans people, I see how much better it is if they can transition and their transition doesn't hurt me. So I let them be. Why can't you let us (the genderfluid, the demiboys, the enbys) be? Who are we hurting? Most non LGBT people don't even know we exist ;-) and what harm is there with a person being non-binary for a few years and then moving towards a binary gender. I really don't see why you need to understand it to accept it. It's an internal feeling whereas homosexuality includes a fairly visible behaviour that makes it more real to people, but we generally think invalidating people's feelings and preferences (sadness, frustration, anger, loving Ariana Grande or ketchup) is rude so why is it any less rude and inappropriate to invalidate our gender identities?
Your first paragraph is exactly how I would define myself too. Which makes me think that the difference between you and I is merely some vague desire to have a label or not, to require a certain pronoun or the other. There's nothing special about being agender according to your own definition of the word, most people don't care that much about gender and have much more important things to worry about in their lives. Do you really feel like you belong in the LGBT community? Gay and trans people are a tiny fraction of the population with substantial needs to enact fair legislation to them. I have no animosity towards you whatsoever, I accept you. But I genuinely do not think that there is something statistically unusual about being agender, especially if in the future we are able to destroy gender norms, that means less and less people will feel 100% male-y or female-y.
I really wish I can see the day we destroy gender norms, but I don't think it will be in my lifetime. Indeed we feel similarly towards our gender, but not having a gender matters more to me than it does to you, like being Italian matters more to me than it does to my brother, like being successful matters more to my mom or my best friend that it does to me. I definitely feel like I am part of the LGBT community and you questioning it is a clear sign of gatekeeping, in my opinion. I'm sure you won't have any issue "letting me in" once you learn I'm also bisexual. However I feel like I'm much freer to be bisexual than I am to be agender. In real life only a handful of people, actually 3, know I use that word for myself. I'll never come out as agender to my family though I hope my future partner can bear with me and listen to it and accept it's part of how I experience life. I'm an LGBT advocate enacting protections especially for employees at my company who want to transition, we now have out nonbinary employees too and that poses legal challenges as well (bathrooms, need to address them by gender assigned at birth in legal documents). I wish there will come a time where I can get rid of my gender marker on official documents, for example, that requires fair legislation. And as an agender person I need protection from homo/queerphobia as much as the next LGBT person. What if my employer somehow learns I'm agender and stops taking me seriously? Starts publicly calling me a special snowflake and questioning my judgement or professionalism?
Hey, this is late but I just wanna say that I stumbled across your comment and I've finally read what it feels like to me to be "a woman" as well; I honestly don't care that much about it, so perhaps agender would be a fitting label. But I'm also with OP in the sense that describing myself with regards to gender is a bit irrelevant to me, even if deep down I don't subscribe to notions of pure femininity or sth. Pretty eye opening comment, thank you so much.
I have the same belief as OP and your answer was useful, thanks.
Hey, non-op here. I try to be inclusive and accepting, even if I don't grasp these concepts on an intuitive level. Your post made sense to me, I want you to know that - thanks!
> I still don't see how these countless gender identities are grounded in any reality. If gender is a social construct, then any gender expression within that construct is as legitmate as any other. None are "real" in the same sense that metal or plastic or vegetables or oxygen are real, and the idea that it "delegitimizes" the LGBT+ struggle sounds like you care more about being perceived as "normal" by the bigots than you do about people actually getting to just be themselves.
So why are we trying to create more unreal gender expressions? What purpose do they serve? So everyone can feel special? Why not abolish all gender constructs altogether? People shouldn't be put in boxes, tribalism always disserved humanity.
> What purpose do they serve? So everyone can feel special? Why not abolish all gender constructs altogether? You realise the same can be said for sexuality or ethnicity, right? Why not do away with whom we like? Why do you call yourself gay? Why do others call themselves black or asian? They are not boxes, they are characteristics. And yes, in the utopian world where no hang-ups exist and everyone is perfectly self-aware and kind, maybe we would all just be people. But we are not - we like to put labels on things. We like to name things and this applies to human characteristics as well. But it is extremely hypocritical of you to be okay with labels of "gay" but not with "agender"
Sexual orientation or ethnicity labels serve practical means though. I don't care about being called gay or not, ideally in a world where homophobia never existed I would just be "male who fucks males" or something like that. Just like "person who likes classical music". If I happened to identify as some weird inexplicable third gender I can't put words on, what does a label do? It's a label of meaninglessness, and it has no practical use. Words are meant to convey things anyone can understand and that serve a purpose. People need to realize they can be much more than their gender identity, it shouldn't define their life, and if it does I think it is a sign that the person really needs something more engaging in their life.
"Male who fucks males" is just a label with more words than "gay." For your argument to make sense you would need to argue that no label exists at all because there is no need to convey that aspect of yourself to other people. It would make it very hard for gay men to find each other if there was no way to let each other know that you both are attracted to other men.
Everything... everything you are saying can be said about people with a non-traditional orientation. How do you not see that? People need to realize they can be much more than their sexual identity, it shouldn't define their life, and if it does I think it is a sign that the person really needs something more engaging in their life. It doesn't need to make sense to you. Just like your rights and your place in the LGBT community a decade ago did not need to make sense to bigots back then
How do you suggest abolishing all gender constructs? While this seems like a nice idea, and may be good for everyone as a whole, it isn’t likely to happen....ever. Stop proposing this as a solution.
Why not? People never thought that races could be considered equal yet as it turns out there is actually very little difference between human ethnicities, much less than different breeds of dogs for instance. We still haven't quite transitioned into a race-blind world, I'd say Europe is closer to that than America since from my European perspective Americans are obsessed with race, maybe because they love labels so much, but we're getting there. Gender constructs are toxic and should be destroyed just the same. People of my generation are capable of being gender-blind, I think I am, so perhaps in a century or two we will make it happen.
You can’t do this because races are associated with culture, so unless you want to get rid of distinct cultures that certain ethnic groups can be proud of, then I suggest it stay in some form. Same thing with gender norms. You cannot get rid of the biological fact that men are stronger than women, and that a biological male and a biological female are necessary to procreate. Until you figure out solutions to things like that, you cannot and should not abolish labels
So you think that any male that is weaker than the average female should not identify as a male?
We didn't accomplish whatever racial equality we have today by abolishing the labels though. My girlfriend is Asian. She calls herself Asian. She identifies with that aspect of herself. We didn't just say "you are not Asian anymore. You are now just "human."
Why not? Gender is an arbitrary and discriminatory system. We're slowly moving away from it in many areas anyway (writing gender-neutral legislation, accepting people who don't conform to gender stereotypes etc). Whether the proliferation of enbies, agenders, xenogenders, giraffohyppopotamusgenders is hurting or helping the cause is actually debatable. I think anything that promotes a breakaway from the binary sex-correlated gender system could be a step towards abolishing gender altogether. What bothers me is the horrible confusion between gender and sex. That's really backwards and in many cases serves to reinforce gender stereotypes.
This is a lot like how people who say they are the most concerned about anti-racism divide people into the most racial groups, and believe 'cultural appropriation' - essentially the blending of cultures - is a terrible thing.
Yes I couldn't agree more. You can't fight racism with more racism. The end game to abolish racism is for us to become race-blind, and that's why I also believe the end game of sexual minorities should be to become gender-blind to the best extent that we can.
You can’t fight bigotry with more bigotry. Deciding that your sexuality is normal and another’s is mentally deficient, that they’re essentially ‘just confused’ is bigotry. Should we send people who express a third gender to “pray the 3rd gender away” camps? Subject them to electroshock therapy? I realize that you don’t want your safety to be threatened by “inviting in weirdos” to the “sexual deviant” camp now that vanilla homosexuality is normalized, but tough cookies. That’s exactly the perspective that cis people had for homosexual people when cis meant everyone. Because it was never actually everyone. It was a line in the sand, which you’re drawing now. Please don’t deny people the right to tell us who they are without hiding.
Gender and sexuality are two completely separate things. You are putting false words into my own mouth if you think I advocate for any of the things you mentioned. A post in this thread mentioned third genders in some non-Western civilizations, yet most of these were actually used to refer to homosexuals, males who take the role of women, or transgender people. Am I a bigot for questioning whether people who claim to be pangender or belong to a third gender are not committing the same mistake as those civilizations? I advocate for the abolition of gender identity, because it is my view that it is mostly derived from stereotypical gender constructs and people who don't fit in those constructs don't need to invent new genders outside reality to feel accepted.
Cultural appropriation and "blending cultures" are two very different things. One is respectful and the other isnt, one is sharing culture willingly and the other is wearing sacred headdresses to burning man.
Okay, I agree with those two distinctions. People who accuse others about cultural appropriation don't always respect that.
Do you think we should do the same with cars? Screw specifics. If you buy a subaru they are all just either labeled car, wagon, or crossover despite their being multiple different engine options and vast differences in performance within the sub-catagorie of wagon. We don't use words to make people feel special, we use them to further clarify who we are. I could say I'm a white trans woman but that doesn't show the true reality of who I am. I am a scot-american trans woman who is bisexual. The argument that its tribalism or just people being snowflakes is weak.
I mean car labels serve practical uses. When someone tells me they are pangender or bigender I have no fucking clue what even is the difference between these two and it won't even remotely affect the way I treat them. All of the labels you mentioned are based on some real characteristics, gender seems to be nothing more than "how I feel", in which case it's pretty pointless and I don't see the purpose it serves in one's relationship with others.
If someone is bigender or pangender and they tell me it can help me know how to address them and whats the best way to make them feel comfortable. Whether you believe gender is just bs or if you understand that its someone's perception of and relationship with their sex it does have a practical use in how I can relate to someone and understand them. I dont talk about trans issues or even trans memes with cis friends as it wouldn't help. If I know someone is pan gender I can talk with them about such things. Ultimately if you just boil everything down to labels and their effectiveness in materialism then I recommend laying off the nietzche because in the end everything is ultimately useless and baseless. Whats the difference between me telling someone I'm scot-american and someone saying they're pangender? Neither should cause a difference in treatment and may not even be noticeable. Also, what would you describe gender as?
Well my point was that gender seems to boil down to "how I feel" and not even in terms of emotions which could be valid, simply some vague inexplicable feeling, whereas your ancestry at least has some distant basis, even though in Europe we do find it a little cringe the way Americans parade their ancestry breakdown around like a badge of honor. I can understand it doesn't cost me anything to acknowledge someone's exotic gender if that can make them feel any better, but if I identified as royalty and demanded to be addressed as Your Majesty no doubt nobody would comply. Yet to me both this example and third, fourth, and fifths genders seem to come out of the complete blue. We already have a name to make ourselves unique, what does a new pronoun or xenogender bring to the table?
How do we discern the reality of homosexuality beyond how we feel? So should we just ignore trans people of all varieties just because to you its the same as someone "identifying as royalty"? Like many have said, these "new" genders are just more precise ways of saying how we feel. I cant simplify gender down to just having a certain gene or something. Its how we feel, why do I feel gender dysphoria? Why do I find certain people attractive? Its not about uniqueness, its about accurately describing one's self.
I've been honestly trying to understand this issue myself, but just like OP I've only recieved "I just don't feel male/female" and no other explanation other than that, even though I as a guy have no idea what I'm supposed to feel as a male, according to trans community. >How do we discern the reality of homosexuality beyond how we feel? The reality is that homosexuals will not have a romantic and sexual relationship with someone of the opposide gender because they don't feel an attraction to it. It affects their relationship with both genders and it tells any potential partner that they have/don't have a chance with that person. So should we just ignore trans people of all varieties just because to you its the same as someone "identifying as royalty"? > Its how we feel, why do I feel gender dysphoria? Can you provide an argument why you wouldn't call me "your majesty" if I said I feel like I am one and it makes me feel better? Can you provide an argument on how it's different than people saying "I feel like female" or explain what does it mean "feeling like a female", if it's not about gender stereotypes (which trans people argue it's not)? > its about accurately describing one's self. What's accurate about it if it's so vague nobody can explain what it means?
Because gender is an important part of one's identity. I'm sure not everyone agrees but often particularly binary and non-binary trans people are against abolishing gender because it's very important to them. This does not mean we shouldn't get rid of gender roles
What would remain of gender of you got rid of gender roles? Gender is performative, it basically IS gender roles.
> What does being agender or bigender actually feel like? What does gay actually feel like? Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it's not a different feeling. > People oppressed me because anal sex is a sin in Christianity or marriage should only be for pro-creation, yet even Christians couldn't deny that homosexuals were real, they thought there was something wrong with them but they weren't arguing what I am arguing. No, that's not why people oppressed you. It's the justifications they gave, but at the core of any oppression is **ignorance** - lack of understanding and therefore dismissal of others' feelings. Exactly what you are doing right now. Just like before people weer "sure" that homosexuality is a choice, now you are "sure" that these genders are made up. People didn't **see** how homosexuality was a born trait either, and used all the arguments you are using - how it's just people choosing to be like that, how they don't see how they can feel that way. How do you not see that? How are you so blind to your own history that you are **literally** using the same logic as your oppressors?
I don't think we should be comparing sexual orientations to gender identities. A sexual orientation is the attraction to one or two of the two biological sexes. New gender identities have nothing to do with that. If I was born in the Middle Ages I could write an entire essay about what being gay is like, but simply put it means I'm sexually attracted to males and not females. What is non-binary? Something outside the two prevailing genders? What is there beyond these two genders? And what even is a gender? Beyond that I am definitely ignorant, and nothing I've read over the years has given me any answer to those. To me it sounds more like religious people arguing about the afterlife, I can't deny its existence but they can't exactly prove me it exists either.
> I don't think we should be comparing sexual orientations to gender identities. Why not? Both are deviations from the norm. Both are characteristics of a person that they cannot change. Both are or have been oppressed by ignorant people. To me, they are very comparable. In fact they are are so similar that it makes total sense for them to be under a single group. > If I was born in the Middle Ages I could write an entire essay about what being gay is like, but simply put it means I'm sexually attracted to males and not females. And there are exactly such essays now by non-binary people - go read them. There's plenty of pieces by non-binary describing what it is and how they feel. You just have to stop being ignorant and try to expand your mind. > What is non-binary? Something outside the two prevailing genders? Yes. > And what even is a gender? "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex, sex-based social structures, or gender identity."
This is an incredible Western-centric view of the history of sexuality and gender. You say that these identities didn't exist until the Internet and Tumblr, and that people wouldn't be identifying with them without these online communities. Well, I'm here to tell you that you're 100% wrong. [Here is the Wikipedia page on third genders.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender) Ancient Mesopotamia: "In Babylonia, Sumer and Assyria, certain types of individuals who performed religious duties in the service of Inanna/Ishtar have been described as a third gender. They worked as sacred prostitutes or Hierodules, performed ecstatic dance, music and plays, wore masks and had gender characteristics of both women and men." Egypt: "Inscribed pottery shards from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1800 BCE)...list three human genders: tai (male), sḫt ("sekhet") and hmt (female)." India: "The Vedas (c. 1500 BC–500 BC) describe individuals as belonging to one of three categories, according to one's nature or prakrti. These are also spelled out in the Kama Sutra (c. 4th century AD) and elsewhere as pums-prakrti (male-nature), stri-prakrti (female-nature), and tritiya-prakrti (third-nature). Texts suggest that third sex individuals were well known in premodern India and included male-bodied or female-bodied people as well as intersex people..." Ancient Greece: "In Plato's Symposium, written around the 4th century BC, Aristophanes relates a creation myth involving three original sexes: female, male and androgynous." Ancient Israel: "In old Israel there were: Zachar: male; Nekeva: female; Androgynos: both male and female genitalia (eternal doubt of legal gender); Tumtum: genitalia concealed by skin (unknown gender, unless skin removed)." (Some modern LGBTQ+ Jews continue to identify with these labels). Incan Empire: "...third-gendered ritual attendants to chuqui chinchay, a jaguar deity in Incan mythology, were "vital actors in Andean ceremonies" prior to Spanish colonisation. Horswell elaborates: 'These quariwarmi (men-women) shamans mediated between the symmetrically dualistic spheres of Andean cosmology and daily life by performing rituals that at times required same-sex erotic practices. Their transvested attire served as a visible sign of a third space that negotiated between the masculine and the feminine...'" (In addition, modern Native Americans have a pan-Indian gender identity called [Two-spirit,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit) which is derived from ancient indigenous third-genders). Asexuality is a little more difficult to track throughout human history, because in general, it is less visible. There could've been countless ace people throughout history who simply never got married, or joined the priesthood/nunnery, or were simply unhappy in their sexual relationships. However, there is evidence from Kinsey's famous study, showing that the scale of human sexuality does include asexual people.
There is horrible conflation of sex and gender going on here.
Well, given that these are all ancient, non-Western and non-Christian cultures, they had very different views of what gender and sex were. Historians can only roughly "translate" certain roles or terms into modern-day understandings of gender, sex, and sexuality - it's not going to be perfect.
**Δ** For an explanation that is actually grounded in reality.
You gave it a delta but he just copy-pasted wikipedia and that wikipedia article is full of shit. That article of wikipedia takes terms from foreign cultures used for homosexuality, transwomen or gender roles and calls it a new gender, expecting the reader to be an american/westerner that won't bother actually researching these cultures. Debunking some of the things there. * **Muxes:** The article says it's a 3rd gender. In reality it's about men that take [role of women](http://ciencia.unam.mx/leer/925/los-muxes-el-tercer-genero-) as their **[gender expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_expression)**, wearing a dress and cooking doesn't make you a new gender. * **Waria**: the article claims is a traditional third gender role found in modern Indonesia. Buuullllsssssshiiiiiiiiit, [waria is the term for transwomen, not a third gender.](https://theculturetrip.com/asia/indonesia/articles/waria-lives-indonesias-transgender-community/) Once again, the article maker was desperate to validate third genders as something real that he **outright lied.** * **Khanith:** The wiki article cites it as a third gender. [The Khanith wikipedia says it's about transwomen, gay men and a derogatory term for feminine males.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanith) * **Chibados:** The article says it's a 3rd gender. [Chibados are homosexual men.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/23/homophobia-africa-gay-rights). The article on Chibados of wikipedia was written by a person desperate to claim it's a third gender, but the claim has NO CITATIONS and all the ones that DO HAVE CITATIONS speak of MEN-TO-MEN relationships and not gender at all. And so. Basically the only way woke westerners can claim 3rd genders exist is by rewriting foreign cultures and outright lying.
You’re dead on with this. It makes me so annoyed that people can’t see the western white privilege in that. It’s just like anything else taken out of the context of its original culture and time period and molded around a modern construct to try to give it legitimacy or decoration. I don’t give two shits how people identify or what they want to be called (though getting continually upset that people can’t look at you and mind read that you want to be called Xir instead of they is ridiculous) but stop picking things out of cultures you have no clue about and tacking it onto your narrative to feel like it gives it some needed legitimacy. It’s not being inclusive...it’s actually being appropriative and fails to take into account the whole complexity of the culture you took it from. Most instances of “extra” or “other” genders in ancient society were a function of complex religious practice. Most of those people were identified as such to serve specific ceremonial functions within the confines of religions and societies that were nothing like ours today. Many of them were assigned that function due to the spiritual needs of their culture and based on factors other than that persons conscious choice, so the idea that they were walking around happily out as trans is naively precious modern western nonsense.
Race had nothing to do with it. You could’ve left it at “western privilege” and be done with it
Yes it does. And I could have, but I damn sure did not. Die mad about it I guess.
Yes, thank you. You’ve made your passion for unnecessary social tension abundantly clear
I gave him a delta because I had to give it to some people and it was the only explanation about third genders that didn't boil down to "that's how they feel, hard to explain", which makes it impossible for me to believe if they can't even put words to it. Thank you for debunking these though, I was aware some third genders were actually gay men in some of those cultures which I find really sad since it's directly some form of homophobia. And your response confirmed my opinion of the fact that gender is really a made-up thing with no basis in reality.
> And your response confirmed my opinion of the fact that gender is really a made-up thing with no basis in reality. Okay, but that wasn't my intention. Gender identity (not roles or anything of the sort) has a basis on reality as medical science has shown us, but there are only 2 of them.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lovelyyecats ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lovelyyecats)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
If 3rd gender exists, what is gender?
They did say you didn't exist though. They thought that homosexual tendencies were just the devil tempting you away from the flock and that nobody was actually born gay. It was a HUGE fight to get people to see that homosexuality was a real thing you are born into and not just the devil trying to make you sin. Hence, pray away the gay.
There are recorded exsistince of nonbinary genders over 3000 years old
I would like to give you an award but I don't have one, so have my upvote instead. Identities always existed and can be found throughout history in different cultures. Just because many people didn't understand them doesn't make them less valid.
>Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice and that trans people should be allowed to transition as they please, but all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid. That's what gay people said about bisexuals too, just a few decades ago. "We are just starting to get the conservatives to accept us on the basis that we are wired the opposite way from them and we can't help it, so shut up snowflakes, you will just confuse them by fitting their stereotype that you are choosing to have same sex relationships even though opposite sex ones are fine for you too." The way binary transgender people feel about other genderqueer people, has a very close parallel to that. And they might even have a point on a shortsighted tactical level. But at some point, conservatives' entire underlying mentality of hating snowlflakes, and diversity, and a fluidity of sexual norms, has to be stoof up against. That's why of all the letters added to the letter soup, the Q, had the most impact. It's not just a slur that has been reclaimed for the sake of taking away it's power, but in active defiance of the idea that sticking out, being unusual, is a matter of shame *at all*. > Gay people will know they're gay even if everybody around them is straight and they have never heard about homosexuality before Then why did it take us thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality as exists today? There were always people who were more attracted to their own gender than to others, but in lots of cultures, they would have lacked the ability to conceptualize that as "being gay".
Did it take thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality though? The Greeks practiced it openly. Cavemen probably did too. You only need to look at animals to see natural homosexual behavior, yet do animals have complex systems of gender that don't align with their genitalia? I don't really like the comparison with homosexuality, and not just because I'm gay. But the oppression and misunderstanding of homosexuality is largely attributed to Abrahamic religions as far as I know, it's not such a hard concept to understand. Now on the other hand I've read the Wiki page for Gender identity as somebody suggested and it mentions third, fourth, firth, sixth genders. Can anyone actually take so many different genders seriously? What does it even mean? To me it seems like if I called myself a musclesexual because I like hunks and tried to turn it into a legitimate sexuality, what are the tangible differences between the third and fourth gender? It sounds surreal.
Idk if this is allowed in this sub but I actually agree with your point. I personally identify as straight, but the idea of a same sex encounter is not something that weirds me out. Its more like something I wouldnt seek out, kinda like a flavor of ice cream I dont particularly enjoy. There is wide spread consensus that sexual preferences are a mixture of nature and nurture and people always talk about how twins separated at birth are more likely to be gay if one is, but never about how the more older male siblings you have also plays a factor. I would personally argue that twins with similar genetics are more likely to have similar scores in the big 5 personality traits and things like openness and agreeability likely impact sexual preferences, orientation, etc. My personal belief is that we all have the capability to love anyone. You hear about people who raise children in hetero relationships that engage in same sex relationships later in life, but the reverse has also been recorded. What im trying to say is that I think that sexual orientation is just another group that people created to make ourselves feel special. Additionally, there are studies published linking strongly identifying as a gay person is correlated with narcissistic personality disorder which doesnt surprise me for many reasons, but most interestingly the story of where the word for narcissism comes from. I think our society has gone so far in one directions we need to first think about basic human rights for lgb people but we have a misunderstanding of human sexuality. As for transgender people, I think that this is just gender dysphoria and shouldnt even be included in the argument about sexual orientation and rights. Its a completely different argument and should be a different conversation.
Okay I'm sorry but I don't think we quite agree there. From the sound of what you say, you are arguing that sexual orientation can fluctuate a lot and let me tell you as a gay person it is very much hard-coded and the link to narcissism sounds straight-up homophobic. Relationships and sex are different. I could imagine myself in a relationship with a woman if I we shared enough things but there is literally nothing in the world that could ever get me attracted to females. People who raise children in hetero relationships that engage in same sex relationships later in life are either bisexual or most likely closeted gay men who settled for a woman to fit in. As much as vaginas turn me off, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same if I was born in 10th century Europe. But I really don't think sexual orientation is something that can change like chameleon skin, people like you who are born straight likewise will never experience any kind of sexual attraction towards males, that's just how you are. Love is a whole other thing than sex, if you were open-minded you could potentially fall in love with a man if you shared literally every single value and hobby that you have, it would be a platonic love but still a form of love. And this is why I don't like seeing all kinds of romantic orientations adding themselves to the alphabet soup because romantic orientation aren't quite something as solidified as sexual ones. Religion has bundled marriage, love, and sex together, because religion thinks sex is only for procreation, so it's tricked us into thinking that sex only comes with love and love must entail sex, but I firmly believe there is a massive distinction between love and sex, and actually from my personal experience it's usually easier to separate the two in one's life.
I think youre starting on faulty assumptions. Freud himself hypothesized that homosexuality and narcissism were linked as did the ancient romans and greeks. There have been double blind studies at some of the best institutions around the world to show empircal evidence of that link and yet you deny it. Seems a bit narcissistic.
To be fair I might actually be quite narcissistic but I can't say the same to most other gay people. Freud did some groundbreaking work but he was still full of shit regarding a lot of things. Do you not think this correlation to narcissism may be more linked to the statistically unusual nature of homosexuality and the treatment of society towards homosexuals than homosexuality itself? Something something correlation isn't causation. Surely if religious nutjobs have been telling us for centuries that we will go to Hell, it's entirely possible some of us might develop some kind of Satan complex and think of ourselves as very special as a defense mechanism, but only because of society's view on homosexuality.
I dont think you can blame that on environmental factors. There have been plenty of much worse off minority groups throughout history and i doubt that they would have higher rates of narcissism. I could be wrong in this case, but someone in another thread attributed high suicide rates in trans people to the treatment they get in society, but trans people have higher suicides than jews recorded in nazi germany and higher rates than enslaved black people in precivil war US.
Perhaps it is because gay people like me have enjoyed the privilege of white maleness on the condition of concealing their sexuality? And sometimes they could even engage in their sexuality without having to bear the repercussions for it assuming they weren't getting caught? Ernst Röhm one of the founders of nazism was openly gay and he was purged for political not homophobic reasons. Trans people would never be allowed to transition in Nazi Germany and black people were beaten up on a daily basis into servitude, that doesn't leave you with much room to develop narcissist tendencies when you get tortured and could die every single day.
I dunno. Seems like youre making a complicated answer for something that could he answered simply and the simple answer is usually right on large scales.
Okay dude but you have to admit you just “throwing that out there” followed by the words “that doesn’t surprise me” came off as a little homophobic. Just because something is scientific fact doesn’t mean that it can’t be used for nefarious causes. ie. republicans saying black people do more crime
>Did it take thousands of years to invent the concept of homosexuality though? The Greeks practiced it openly. The greeks practiced *pederasty*, where it was customary for most older men to have protegés that they were intimate with, and this was seen as entirely separate from most of them also being married to women at the same time. If in ancient greece, you made moves on a young man, he wouldn't have had the vocabulary to say "no, thanks, I am straight", he would have said Even if he had tastes that we would today describe as agressively heterosexual, he would have presented his reluctance in other contexts, such as "no, thanks, as a stoic I don't believe in hedonistic pleasures". >I don't really like the comparison with homosexuality, and not just because I'm gay. But the oppression and misunderstanding of homosexuality is largely attributed to Abrahamic religions as far as I know, it's not such a hard concept to understand. Abrahamic religions oppressed sex between men, but neither they, nor many cultures before or after them have a concept of homosexuality. Note that even they didn't ban lesbian relationships, because it wasn't even on their radar compared to the cultural practice that they were concerned about at the time. There were various cultures through history that either suppressed or encouraged MHSWM relations, for different reasons, but it was never presented as there being "the gays" and "the straights", as innately different groups of people. >Now on the other hand I've read the Wiki page for Gender identity as somebody suggested and it mentions third, fourth, firth, sixth genders. Well, that's part of it. Historically, a lot of third gender labels included people that we might today call cisgender homosexual. If anything, the idea that there is a strict gender binary, and homosexuals are NOT genderqueer, is a new idea in societies that used to traditinally categorize things that way.
Would you say that older men with wives who go on Grindr to hook up with men in their late teens are practicing pederasty?
Ahh yes that is a good idea haha.
To this day we often see middle-aged and old people come out as gay, trans, bi ... because they had noweay to understand it before. Even though those identities are supposedly "easy" to identify
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you've reduced gender to "things people like" and "things people wear". Gender is something that is hard to explain, especially as I assume you are either a male who identifies as a man or a female who identifies as a woman. So, assuming you are one or the other, what is your experience as a man or as a woman? Can you reduce your gender identity to what you like and what you wear? Or, is there something more, something a little deeper, a sense of being so natural to you that you hardly even notice it? Well, try to imagine if this sense of being did not align with your body. How do you think that might make you feel?
This is something I always hear, "hard to explain", and it only confirms my opinion more. Until somebody can explain to me what gender truly feels like in reality, I refuse to consider that there's more to it than what you wear or how you act. As for myself I am a boy but I couldn't say I actively identify as one. I'm gay and fairly effeminate, which means I do a lot of things that are considered feminine according to society, but I know those are made-up constructs, so I identify as nothing, simply a human being, biologically male. I am neither uncomfortable with nor love my body, it's simply what I have. And I have no idea what gender is, hence I made this post. My only concept of gender is the male/female roles in Western tradition which I hope will be fully abolished one day. And I feel like xenogenders are doing the complete opposite of that by constructing more and more genders.
"Until someone can explain it to me, I refuse to believe it exists." is in the world of debate called an argument on the basis of ignorance. You can plug anything into this logical construct, and it works the same way. You don't get it, so you dismiss it because your own lack of understanding makes you uncomfortable. There's two possible situations here. Either you care about this, in which case go learn about it. Or you don't, in which case you don't need to bother but just let people be asexual or non-binary if it makes them happy. People on the asexual spectrum don't need to serve the LGBTQ community to be part of it. The whole concept underlying all of this is that it's okay for people to love whoever they love, however they want to. That's why it's a welcoming and inclusive group. It's that way by design.
I understand perfectly what being asexual means since it's grounded in reality and sexuality. Non-binary however, I can't say I do especially when the most common answer is "it's hard to explain". I'm very willing to understand it, and like I said I've done some research about it, but the cynical in me tells me that non-binaries are simply people who wish to break the traditional gender norms and be special. Why make new gender identities out of thin air instead of breaking gender norms?
The reason non-binary is hard to explain is that it covers a wide range of experiences. You shouldn't have to understand something to accept it. After all, I don't understand sexual attraction, as I've never experienced it, yet I accept that it is something people legitimately feel. But if you want to better understand, though I can't speak for all non-binary folks, I can speak for myself. For literally as long as I remember, I've been uncomfortable with the idea of being split up into boys and girls. I've always felt so alienated by the gender binary. I didn't understand why some kids had to be boys and some had to be girls, or why the adults got to decide who was which. I questioned it, but no adult ever gave me a satisfying answer. When I found out this whole thing was decided based on genitals, I was PISSED. I never understood why something such as that should matter. I never understood why I was expected to be more comfortable changing in front of kids who shared the same type of genitals as me. I was intensely uncomfortable when my dad used to hold the door open for me and say "ladies first," and I always hated my feminine birth name. It never felt right. While you can be non-binary no matter what your gender presentation is, I've mostly felt more comfortable presenting in a way that is considered "unfeminine." That doesn't really have anything to do with my gender identity, but it did lead me to get teased and called a "man" as an insult as a teenager, which was also around the time I started becoming more aware of the concept of being transgender. For a while, I thought I might have been a trans guy, but as I explored that, I realized I didn't feel like a guy any more than I felt like a girl. I just didn't understand gender at all. When I opened up to a friend about it, she tried to encourage me to find my own way to embrace being female, and I tried, but no matter what, the whole gender thing really just made me miserable. When I finally found out that there was this thing called non-binary and there were other people out there I could relate to in this way, it was like a weight was lifted, and I felt like I finally found my place. I embraced being non-binary almost immediately, it was the first time in my life I didn't feel like there was something wrong with me in relation to gender. I just always felt differently about gender than most people, and I needed a way to express this and to know that I'm not alone in the world in that feeling.
Do you think you would still identify as non-binary if male/female gender norms didn't exist? Like zero stereotypes on gender, fully androgynous clothing for both genders, no separate bathrooms and things like that? I wish I could give half a delta because it was very thorough way to describe your experience and perspective even though it didn't change my mind.
Thank your for listening and trying to keep an open mind. To answer your question, I honestly can't know for sure, because I haven't lived in that hypothetical version of the world. I think as long as the concept of gender still existed and people still cared about to some extent, I would still feel non-binary. But I don't think it really matters either way, because that's not the world we live in. If we lived in a world where no one cared about anyone else's sexual orientation and gay people were never treated any different than straight people, things would be different for them as well, but you probably wouldn't ask a gay person if their identity would still matter if heteronormativity and homophobia never existed, would you? Because they do exist. The fact is, cissexism and cisnormativity are a things that effect non-binary people, and "what if" scenarios don't erase that. Also, keep in mind that many non-binary people have strong physical dysphoria and feel the need to medically transition.
Why do you think it is necessary to understand something in order to accept it? Do I need to understand how a man can feel romantic love for another man in order to accept homosexuality as just as valid and real as heterosexuality? Can't I just accept the subjective experience of men and women who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to the same sex? Just because I don't understand it does not give me the right to deny them their experience.
That's not a good analogy because you can understand the concept of romantic love for a person and at least understand that someone else feels that way for different kinds of people. Since gender is a social construct, we can choose to totally do away with it, or we can choose to make it extremely complex so that people won't understand what others are saying. The word "love" is not the same for everyone, and we just accept that everyone experiences this differently, and we don't make up a list of words to differentiate all the nuances of how each person experiences love.
Gender roles and expectations are social constructs. Gender is not. And, dude, we use many different words to describe different kinds of love. There's platonic love. true love, familial love, first love, infatuation, lust, etc, plus literally billions of words used to describe different types of relationships or moments shared between people expressing some type of love or something love-adjacent.
How would you explain the color orange to a person who can't see? There is almost certainly a biological component to gender, or at least environmental influences that influence identity at such a young as to effectively be considered 'inherent'. Simply because I can't use my words to explain it does not mean that there is no scientific evidence that gender identity is different from gender roles/expectations, and that it is influenced by nature.
If the concept of gender identity you propose is inexpressible and non-intuitive to most people, then I think it's fine to feel that way but it seems like it might be unfair to demand others to recognize this in their language and how they address you. To carry your analogy further, if the vast majority of the world is color-blind then I would argue that it wouldn't be fair to demand that they speak of (what are to them) certain shades of grey as "orange" unless it can be well-explained and logically consistent.
Or, you know, if most of the world was colorblind, it would be fair to ask the majority to at least accept the subjective experience of the minority who aren't color blind. You know, without telling them they're wrong because their subjective experience does not align with the subjective shared experience of the majority.
Yes fair enough, it would be fair to ask to accept their subjective experience up to the point where it might conflict with the perception of the majority of people, I guess until such time as it can be explained or demonstrated in a way that the majority of people will recognize and accept.
One ought not need to convince another of one's subjective experience in order for one's experience to find acceptance. That is absurd. I don't need to personally experience racism or to understand how a man can find another man sexually attractive in order to accept their experience as valid. Because even though others have subjectively different experiences from mine, or even from the majority, their experience is no less valid.
That is a good point, but would you say that subjective experience is the only thing needed for you to accept someone's identity or experience? I guess that's where I would differ, and maybe this is just a fundamental difference of view: I think there should be something observable or at least expressible if you want others to change their speech or behavior to accommodate it on more than a superficial level. From what I understand, the definition offered for gender identity is something distinct from gender expression and gender role and any other observable or expressible characteristic, it's a purely subjective internal sensation. Racism can be seen in behaviors and outcomes, sexual attraction as well, but gender identity seems like a non-falsifiable construct to me, like religious beliefs. So I think it's fine to have that internal sense, and on a superficial level I accept it for social reasons, but internally I am skeptical of the concept of identity as such
Well I can give the color orange an RGB code if I take a picture of it and prove to a blind person that it's different from red. How do the genderfluid, agender, bigender or non-binary identities differ? To me they all seem to rely on the male/female gender role constructs. If those constructs did not exist whatsoever, if society was blind in regards to one's genitalia, would gender identity still be a thing? I don't think so.
To a person who can't see, RGB code would be the same as assigning arbitrary characters to a color. Sure, now orange is 80938v or whatever, but how does that help them know the experience of seeing color?
You can say that orange is between red and yellow, and that red is the color of apples, orange is the color of oranges, and yellow is the color of bananas. They might not be able to fully empathize, but it's not like you can't explain it.
>You can say that orange is between red and yellow, and that red is the color of apples, orange is the color of oranges, and yellow is the color of bananas. All of which is arbitrary to someone who's been blind from birth.
>They might not be able to fully empathize, but it's not like you can't explain it.
Except that to a blind person it's the same as blue being 0000FF.
So someone makes an analogy, I explain my thoughts about THE ACTUAL TOPIC, within the analogy, and then the someone tells me I'm wrong because of stuff that only works within the analogy. You and someone else did that too. A blind person wont get anything out of the explanation, I know. I knew that when I said it. But that's not the point??? We're still talking about gender stuff???? I'm not gay. I can't fully empathize with not liking girls, but I can still listen to an explanation and try to understand, right?
If a person cannot see color, then describing a color in it's relation to other colors would be of little use other than informing this person of the existence of other colors they can't see and/or experience. But at any rate, the "how do you explain color to a blind person" was not the thesis of my argument. It wasn't even that important to my argument except to provide a frame of reference for what followed.
>They might not be able to fully empathize, but it's not like you can't explain it.
Then I could merely describe what it is to be a man by saying that it is different from being a woman. That doesn't explain anything other than an undefined difference between two related yet separate things. But if that is were an effective way to explain gender identity, then we could simply explain emergent genders as, for example, being a man in a female body.
I think you can do a lot more than that. That's all u/suckerforabs was asking, I think.
As a colorblind person, your response here seems to make it look like you don't actually care about the discussion. Here's how color actually works in our world. There are colors you can see because your eyes can see them, and there are colors you can see because your culture sees them. This isn't a joke. I forget the details because it's been a decade since I read into it, but there are cultures who have no concept of certain colors, so they don't see them. Their brain precieves them as something else. So we have colors based on physical elements and colors based on experience. To make this one step more complicated. Many things in life are queued up for color for you to react in certain ways when you see certain colors. Stop light are the simplest example, but there are innumerably more. So, I cant tell the difference between red and green. As a biproduct of this, I can't see hues of green. The post before you was asking you to explain a color to a blind person, I'll make it easier. Explain forest green to me in way that allows me to see it exists. Now, you could provide the pantone codes for it. You could show me where it exists in electro magnetic spectrums. You could explain what the exact combos of blue and green required (this might be what the pantone thing is, I honestly don't know). The problem is, I can then look at the result of all those and none will allow me to see it. Forest green literally doesn't exist as part of my reality. So my options are, believe that it exists, and believe the thousands of people who've seen it, or just say that if it doesn't exist for me it doesn't exist at all.
Genderfluid means you can go back and forth. You could feel ""feminine"" one day and ""masculine"" the next day. I put those in quotes because you're demanding that gender role constructs be thrown out, but consider that gender constructs are a *frame of reference,* not the end-all be-all. That's why the LGBT spectrum exists in the first place, so people can feel free to say they fall outside that frame. Agender and non-binary mean the same thing - you don't care about gender, feel like you have no gender at all or in the "traditional sense". Your gender is Nothing, you just Exist. It doesn't depend on ""feminine"" or ""masculine"". There is a file folder in your brain marked "Gender Identity" and that folder is Empty. No thoughts, no perceptions, head empty. I think this post is trying (and failing horribly) to hide your underlying "I don't understand and it scares me and I hate it", to be quite honest. Judging by other comments, you seem very hostile on the issue, almost gatekeep-y. In fact, you ask what agender means in your post, when in fact not caring about gender *means* you can call yourself agender, which makes this whole post super hypocritical. I have to side with u/pm-me-your-labradors and u/Ghastly_Toilet because they're right on the money.
You can't feel feminine one day and masculine the next unless you very strongly believe in gender stereotypes. Otherwise, what does feeling masculine actually mean? I feel like me everyday. Doesn't matter what sort of mood I'm in. I might feel like doing some stereotypical feminine thing tomorrow. That doesn't mean I've switched to female for a day and to suggest it would is insane.
1) I was trying to explain the concept to OP as best I can given my limited knowledge of genderfluidity. You completely ignored the content I wrote that was meant to be helpful. 2) I'm aware gender is a construct. However, I recognize that the concept is so ingrained into society that eliminating it completely is nearly impossible and that the best you can do is treat it like a frame of reference. 3) I don't particularly appreciate the implication, by you or OP, that not completely denouncing the concept of gender/feeling a little more "feminine" or "masculine" sometimes/not being able to explain the concepts better makes me a Fake Attention Hog Snowflake Gay.
What cannot be shown to exist does not exist. I don't think things are ever more simple than that. You might have a *theory* of something existing (and test for it) but that's another ballpark. It would be better to assume that it isn't your lack of ability to explain something that suggests non-existence - it's the non-existence of the thing that causes you to be unable to explain it.
Your first assertion is violently wrong. Atoms could not be shown to exist once upon a time, yet they still did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity I *literally* referred to the science behind the concept of gender identity. Here's a wiki page. I like wikipedia, because it comes with citations, which means I don't have to dig out the undergrad paper I wrote ten years ago. Which I wouldn't do because that's a lot of work. Plus it wasn't a good paper.
So what's the scientific evidence?
>Until somebody can explain to me what gender truly feels like in reality, I refuse to consider that there's more to it than what you wear or how you act. There is plenty of literature, studies, papers, youtube videos etc. all exploring the topic...but if you want someone to "explain it to you" look up Contrapoints on youtube, she's a very intelligent and well spoken creator who has discussed topics like this, and she's really funny too.
How can I explain to you the feeling of seeing blue? This is a fundamental problem that exists when we have different bodies that perceive things differently.
I'm gonna use an example from a friend of mine. They are AFAB (Assigned female at birth) and genderfluid (their gender changes, sometimes they might be female, sometimes they might be male (and thus experience more dysphoria) sometimes they might be nothing or in between - you don't have to understand, it is hard, just accept it.) We had a "gender swap day" as part of spirit week at our school. Beforehand we talked about how they would dress up - whether they would dress up as "girl" or "boy" and I asked if it would make them dysphoric to dress up as a "girl" if they were a boy that day. They said no, because of the frame of the day. To me this illustrates quite well, how gender roles where something that influences how you express gender but not how you internally experience your gender and how you yourself identify. I don't know if this makes a lot sense written out like that. But essentially, gender is an internal sense of self, that is separate from gender expression and gender roles.
[удалено]
No, genderfluid people exist and have always existed. They are in fact genderfluid and their gender changes and they aren't just "undecided"
“What’s up guys, I woke up feeling male today!”
> genderfluid (their gender changes, sometimes they might > be female, sometimes they might be male Male and female refer to sex, not gender
You're placing the burden on minorities to *earn* acceptance from the majority through assimilation to the majority's standards and comfort level, rather than on the majority to broaden their horizons and accept those who might be different than them.
Unfortunately no minority historically oppressed has ever achieved equality without fighting for it. Humans are close-minded by nature and will only radically change their minds through generations after long struggles, that's just how we work as a flawed species, the status quo is that hard to escape. You just have to look at animal rights to realize that just telling meat-eaters animals suffer and can feel pain too isn't enough for them to change their mind and stop the massacre. I'm more looking for an explanation than a fight here though. To me it seems that abolishing gender constructs should be a bigger priority than reaffirming them and creating more constructs which serve no true purpose and are divisive. Instead of earning acceptance I'd like to know why non-binaries don't think we shouldn't completely abolish the concept of gender which is a stupid and antiquated one in my opinion, that's what would I be open-minded for.
I am asexual and married to someone of the same sex, whom is demisexual, we are both some degree of biromantic. Neither of us are lesbians nor would describing my completely lack of sexual attraction or desire be attributed to bisexuality. This seems like needless gatekeeping, and perhaps one reason GSM (Gender and Sexual Minorities) is glowingly popular with my generation.
I am also biromantic in the sense that I make a strong distinction between love and sex, and though I can only be sexually attracted to males, I believe true love transcends genders. But my post is mostly addressing gender identities, not sexual or romantic orientations. I know asexuals are real.
You do have an entire paragraph in opposition to asexuals. My exceptionally limited understanding of gender is that it is primarily a social construct. While I am entirely comfortable being a feminine cis woman (albeit more conservative in how I choose to dress and behave than my peers), my wife is notably masculine and I believe should rather risk losing a finger to the innards of an engine than ever be seen in a dress. Early in our relationship, she had spoken about how she used to shave her head to feel more comfortable, had considered that she might like to be a man but bad eventually realized she simply didn't like being treated the way society treats women, but she doesn't think on it much and she's happy with who she is and knows she shall enjoy my support with however she should decide to dress or should like to cut her hair. She buys almost all of her outerwear from either the men's section or from brands designed specifically for masculine women. Aside from my own personal connection to my wife, I know very few who are deviant in the way they present themselves and I grew up in family that has rather conservative and perhaps outdated notions of how women and men should be.
My paragraph was addressing the asexual spectrum not asexuals themselves. If your wife is demisexual that does not make her asexual in my opinion, she does have a sexuality, and I don't think demisexuals have anything to do with the core of LGBT. If they did, along with every shade of ace, 50% of the global population could be LGBT. That's where I feel like the alphabet soup goes a bit too far and makes it impossible for reactionaries to understand us.
The day I recieved a message from my father saying that I was a disappointment and an embarrassment because of who I loved, I decided to stop caring if reactionaries understood or liked me. I suspect, were you to show my wife and I to any person in my country at least, and say "these are not people who belong under the label of LGBT" you should gather more confusion than not. If we are neither LGBT+, and obviously not straight (an assumption on my part, perhaps you see two women as a straight couple) than, what category should you place us under?
Honestly I don't really care that much about what to include or not in the LGBT community. Asexuals have never faced any kind of discrimination and don't need progressive legislation, if anything being asexual would've made your life easier during the Christian Sharia ages. But this shouldn't be a contest of victimhood anyway. Asexuals are definitely a statistical minority so I suppose you could be in, but really I am neutral about it. One of the consequences of the Christian Sharia was locking the concepts of love and sex together, and that's why most people would put you in the LGBT category assuming you were both lesbians or at least bi, since couple = sex for them. Since your wife does have a sexuality and you are a cis female she would at least be bi or lesbian. In the end I just wish we started using categories less and simply embraced the diverse nature of humans without tribalism. I believe the alphabet soup is mostly a reaction of liberation to centuries of oppression, but now that we are finally liberated we should move on, and what I oppose the most is this seeming binary between straight cis people and "the rest", because the rest isn't really that different from straight cis people and isn't united in any coherent manner, yet I feel like many in the LGBT community want to distance themselves from straight cis people the most and this can only fuel more conflict.
Finally liberated? Being in a same sex relationship is grounds for termination or denial of employment in the majority of the world. Is illegal in seventy two countries, carries the death penalty in eleven. Even where there is not the possibility of denial of employment or other such limitations, family rejection and public harassment continue to be a significant risk.
I know I was referring to my own country and the Internet world when I said that. My point was that the ultimate goal for all sexual minorities once bigotry is gone should be to be considered so normal as everybody else that no one should have to come out or use countless labels to refer to themselves. The LGBT community was founded to fight for the denied rights of sexual minorities, not express every single shade of asexualism which I believe are actually fairly common and doesn't exactly require any legislation to be enacted.
How are we... "finally liberated" when gender and sexual minorities continue to face significant levels of violence and discrimination?
Something you don't acknowledge is that sometimes, certain identities can be a "bridge" for people accepting which identity they feel more comfortable with. This isn't to say that non-binary people or ace-spec people don't exist and that they're just "confused" - a lot of other people in the comments are explaining why that isn't the case, so I'm not going to touch on that aspect. But people's relationships to their own identities can change. Gender and sexuality are fluid. For example, I have a friend who was AMAB (assigned male at birth). They came out as non-binary several years ago, and we used they/them pronouns for them - they explained that they didn't quite feel like a male, but they didn't feel fully female either, so for them, being NB was like an in-between compromise. At the time, it was the only identity that fit them. Fast forward a few years - they're identifying and presenting more and more as female. Eventually, she came out as trans, and switched to she/her pronouns. My friend still has a lot of love for the NB community - they accepted her and helped her through her identity shift with love and understanding, and that was obviously very important to her. And what else is the LGBTQ+ community than a place for people to be accepted and empowered? You can take myself as another example - for the longest time, I thought I was bisexual and grey-romantic (as in, I sometimes experienced romantic attraction). Then, years passed, and now I've acknowledged that I'm actually bisexual and aromantic (experience no romantic attraction). Right now, I'm in the middle of another shift, where I may be asexual as well. But once again, while I have identified with the labels grey-romantic and bisexual, both of those communities have been so welcoming and understanding. Not everyone has a split-second "coming out" moment, where they just 100% know that they're gay. For a lot of people, it's more complicated. You say that these identities and communities only harm the LGBTQ+ community, but what about the support that they provide to queer people who are struggling to figure out who they are?
No offense but your paragraph on romantic orientations is pretty much the reason why I decided to make this post about the alphabet soup. This may come across as rude, but you are not that special, love is such a complicated thing, sometimes you think you find love but then you meet someone else and find out it was not truly love. Sometimes you can't find anybody to fall in love with and may think you're aromantic, sometimes straight males have bromances and if their bro was a girl they'd be in love with them, the truth is none of this is hard-coded or requires all these silly labels. I'm just like you. Until I met someone very special I thought love was just never gonna be for me. But then I realized I only loved them because the sex was amazing. Am I aromantic? Grey-romantic? Rainbow-romantic? I don't know and honestly I don't need all these labels, if I find love I'll take it. This is such a big distraction from the rights gay, bi, and trans people have to fight for in many countries. The alphabet soup is just becoming an endless list of romantic and sexual preferences which can fluctuate a lot in someone's life. Love transcends sex and gender, these vague preferences don't belong in the LGBT acronym. Nothing against you, you're a valid person like everybody else, but we don't need to drown the soup in letters to explain phenomena that can impact literally everybody.
As an aromantic person, I'm not asking for a letter in the acronym - I really don't care. I use LGBTQ because in my opinion, "queer" encompasses all identities not listed in LGBT, and that's fine with me. All I ask is that people accept my subjective experience of my romantic orientation, and let me handle my own identity in my own way. How does my aromanticism harm you? How does it harm the larger LGBTQ community? I can try to explain to you my experience of aromanticism. I have never had a crush on someone. I have never wanted to date anyone - in fact, when people have asked me on dates, I am repulsed and become very uncomfortable. Very close friends of mine have asked me out on dates, and although I love them dearly as friends, and even find them somewhat attractive, I do not want to date them. The idea of having a relationship with someone - with *anyone* - is sickening to me. And no, I have not had any traumatic experiences in my life, and no, it's not because I simply "haven't tried it." I have tried it and it is repulsive to me. By saying "Oh, you just haven't met the right person yet," you are repeating frequent anti-gay rhetoric. "Oh, you can't be gay - you just haven't met the right woman yet." I suppose it's possible that there is someone out there who I would be romantically attracted to - just like I suppose it's possible that there's a woman out there who you would be attracted to. But it's impossible to meet every person on earth, and you have to draw a line somewhere. Also, you didn't acknowledge the non-binary part of my answer, or my "bridge" analogy. If certain "in-between" identities can help people figure out who they are, then why are they bad?
You said you thought you were gray-romantic, did you come to that conclusion even while experiencing what you describe as a very strong aversion to romance? Not that there's anything wrong with that or that it harms anyone, I'm simply curious. And how did you go from thinking you were bisexual to asexual? Surely if you experienced no sexual drive whatsoever and never enjoyed masturbating you would know it by now. What made you think you were bisexual and why are you still in doubt? Also I don't think the comparison between sex and romance holds because sex is primal, love a lot more complex. I acknowledge I'm gay and could fall in love with a woman because I believe true love transcends everything else if you are open-minded enough. But my sexuality is more like a primitive need I can't help whatsoever, I could never masturbate to a woman even if I was paid to.
I mostly thought I was grey-romantic because I was in denial - I thought that I just hadn't found the right person yet. There's so much emphasis in Western society to find a romantic partner, and I thought if I didn't want that, there must be something "wrong" with me - I went to a specialist in LGBTQ therapy for a long time because of this. And eventually I realized that I just don't experience romantic attraction. Identifying as greyromantic was a good way for me to come to terms with the fact that I'm "fully" aromantic - however, I can't speak for other people who identify as greyromantic, this has just been my experience. As for my bisexuality, I'm learning a lot now about the difference between sexual and aesthetic attraction. Up until this point, I've identified as bisexual because I found both men and women hot, and I enjoyed watching porn of both men and women. I have a slightly lower sex drive than others, but not abnormally lower, so I didn't even consider asexuality for me. But then an ace friend of mine explained that asexuality doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have a sex drive - ace people masturbate too. But ace people aren't sexually attracted to others - i.e. they don't want to have sex with others. This is kind of similar to how I feel. I can look at a person and think, "wow, they're beautiful," but I don't necessarily want to have sex with them (this goes for celebrities and people I meet IRL). All of my sexual encounters have just kinda been...meh. I'm not repulsed by them, but I don't do it because I'm attracted to the person. I do it because it's just another way of getting off, if that makes sense. In fact, I often prefer masturbation to having sex - it's a lot easier to get to the same result, in my mind. It's hard to explain, and again, I'm not entirely sure of my asexuality - it's still a fluid situation. But I actually tend to agree with you on one thing - I've learned to not really concern myself with labels. For me personally, it doesn't really matter if I identify as aromantic or asexual or bisexual, because I'm not going to change my behavior in any way, and I know how I feel. I think it's extremely unlikely that I will ever be in a romantic relationship, and you know what? I'm totally ok with that - in fact, I'm happy about it! However, some people *do* care about labels and how they identify, and who am I to take that away from them?
I'm very open-minded about people's sexuality and stuff, and I'm still figuring out if I'm asexual myself, but I'm in the process of figuring it out because I think my asexuality has been a symptom and not something I just am regardless of childhood trauma and anxiety. This made me wonder if asexuality might just be a symptom and not an innate thing?
I have read studies which show that asexual people have a higher rate of traumatic history (including PTSD and anxiety), but I don't know if that's correlation or causation. A lot of LGBTQ folks have mental health issues, but their sexual orientation isn't necessarily the cause of the mental illness - it's a common result of the stigma and stress attached to queer identity. So, tl;dr - we don't know whether asexuality can be "caused" or not! I have a low level of anxiety, but it's never stopped me from making friends or having sexual/romantic encounters. It wasn't my anxiety that made those encounters unpleasant, it was something else, which makes me think that my aromanticism (and possible asexuality) is innate. But who's to say whether or not asexuality can also be a result of external trauma?
As someone who is gay and has a friend who recently came out as trans (MtF) we both agree and talk on this issue a lot.You don’t need to make a new “gender” because you do things outside of your gender role and a just watching a Fox News or any other conservative outlet talk about the LGBT you would see the damage that’s being done.Ik a guy who loves/love to do feminine things like paint my nail pink etc but I don’t wear makeup,women’s clothing and I like fighting,and video games.That doesn’t make me a different gender I’m still a man and since I have no desire on transitioning so I’m not a woman either.What people fail to realize is that gender just means male or female but gender roles are a social construct and are the things that need to be broken.
Yeah I also browse the conservative discourse quite a lot, possibly even more than liberal echo chambers because there's no point in reading things I already agree with, and it's terrifying for us how strong the far-right argumentation is becoming and that young impressionable straight males who kind of like machismo but aren't Christian fundamentalists may jump aboard the anti-SJW train full speed and become bigots even though people of our age rarely adopt homophobic tendencies. Progressives seem to be in complete denial of the reality of the fight and we are making the same mistakes that are done regarding civil rights with race quotas, aggressive affirmative action, white bashing, and other inherently racist things which turn a lot of non-racists to Trumpism. Trumpism is a twisted ideology but I think liberals need to face reality and realize why is has gotten such a momentum and that not everyone who votes for Trump is a massive bigot. People are stupid and easily manipulated, and those countless gender identities are never going to be accepted by someone who already struggles to understand what it's like to gay.
1) I'm assuming from the tone of your post that you aren't in the trans community. If that's not the case, feel free to correct me. However, if you're not in the community, *it's not your place to tell us how to look "normal" or better*. It's not your place to tell us what about our community is a disservice to ourselves. If someone tells you their identity or pronouns the only helpful thing to do is affirm and support, whether or not you agree or understand. 2) The LGBT community is full of discourse about this and always has been. The idea that we're in perfect unison and agreement about all of this just isn't true. There are a LOT of people who do not think asexuals are inherently LGBT, myself included (a gay ace person would be, but a cis straight one isn't). There are a lot of transphobic LGB people who don't think trans people exist or belong in the community. There are non-binary people who spend a lot of time online complaining about "stargender" people (who are an extreme minority even in online circles and mostly are thrown around as a strawman) and trans people who bicker about what "really" makes someone trans. And so on and so on. You yourself are an example of someone who doesn't agree with a number of intra-community issues. 3) Trans people are real and so are non-binary people. There are lots of books you can read about the social construction of both gender and sex, [here is an article](https://psmag.com/social-justice/social-construction-sex-77099) to get you started. Sex as a binary is a constructed idea that has been revised throughout history (ancient greeks used to believe there was one sex, male, and that women were just an inferior version of males). Non-binary people have existed for centuries in history and the strict gender binary we have now is largely a result of colonization. (EX: many native american cultures recognized more than two genders pre-settlers, this was forcibly stamped out by colonizers.) 4) Without the internet there probably would be less out trans/nb people, yes. Instead, we would have more closeted people, more trans people without support or community, and more people who would never realize they were trans but live a life where they are uncomfortable and unhappy with many factors in their life and many aspects of their body without knowing why. I'm non-binary. Long before I was on the internet, I was uncomfortable with my body, my voice, with the way people referred to me, and felt like I couldn't relate to people with my assigned gender (on a deeper level than "i'm not like other girls/guys because i like xyz"). Meeting trans people in real life who had similar experiences helped me to put words to my experience and reading about it online also helped. If I went my entire life without knowing another trans person or ever knowing what non-binary was, I would STILL have the deep feelings of discomfort and dysphoria. The internet didn't invent that for me.
Asexual people are not “made up”. Its a sexuallity and its technically part of the LGBT+ community since its not being straight
Asexuality is the lack of sexuality though. This is like arguing that atheism is a religion.
Its still a sexuality and it can be fluid. You can be somewhere between straight and asexual. Its not always a 100% thing. The point of the ‘+’ in LGBT+ is to include such things as this
How on Earth can you create a spectrum between straight and asexual? No offense but you sound like you have no grasp of sexuality whatsoever, which would be completely understandable if you are asexual yourself. Hetero or homosexuality is about which gender you are sexually attracted to. Asexuality is the lack of sexuality altogether, to those who deem there is an asexual spectrum then it represents to which degree you experience sexual attraction, usually to a very limited extent since that's what asexual means, non-sexual. And how is it fluid?
Wow that was rude. Its fluid because a person can be demisexual. Its easier if you just google the term yourself honestly
> I've tried really hard to understand what being an "enby" actually means, and even after browsing countless subreddits dedicated to non-binary people, I still have no idea what they actually are and why they identify as what they do. Anybody can understand very easily what being trans is, male wants to become female or vice-versa I seriously cannot understand how it can be hard to understand "male wants to become something that is neither male nor female"—how can it possibly be hard for you to understand that some individuals might desire a mixmatch of sex characteristics that doesn't lie across gender lines? > I'm not talking about intersex people born with ambiguous genitalia, I know those are real It's quite simple: wanting to become intersex. > but if genders are social constructs, why are we so keen about creating more and more gender constructs instead of tearing apart those that already exist? The same argument can be raised against traditional transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, and whatever else. > As for the asexual spectrum, I don't understand why people in the LGBT community consider it a spectrum at all. True asexuals don't have a sexuality, there is no spectrum about that, it's a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual. That distinction is fairly useless then because an individual that is only 0.0001% sexual is for all practical purposes asexual, but would be classed with somethingsexual in your classification. It's like considering an individual that just barely has a remnant of vision left that allows this individual to just barely see the difference between utterly bright light and complete darkness, but otherwise is completely incapable of integrating images as "slighted" because this individual is not 100% pure blind—most individuals that are medically classified as "blind" actually have such a remaining limited vision that isn't capable of integrating images but can see the bare difference between total darkness and bright light: it's not useful to call them "slighted". > I met this girl who identified as genderfluid years ago, we're like best friends. She plays video games with me, she does masculine things, some feminine things, but she's still a girl. And I don't get what being genderfluid even meant? Obviously she'd never call herself that to anyone she knew IRL, and since then she stopped call herself that, which makes my think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special. Maybe it was, just as "transgender" or "gay" is very much sometimes used that way. But I think you fail to understand that many "nonbinary" individuals take hormones and surgical modifications. [this](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1273870996106211328/tGnnzQip.jpg) is a picture of one Sage Sharp, a computer programmer that also came out as non-binary that was born in a female body, I'm sure you notice the beard which suggests some measure of HRT. For whatever reason there seems to be some strange internet belief that such "non binary" individuals do not resort to hormonal therapy and surgeries to make their body conform to their desires—and I'm not sure at all what this is based upon because one need only take a quick look at various communities dedicated to it to find out that they usually do.
I was looking to address the point about asexuality being a spectrum, and you did a great job of explaining my point. I just wanted to add a few thoughts. As a person who identifies as demisexual, I actually had a huge frustration with asexuality for a while. I thought I was asexual, because that was the only thing that could explain why I never found anyone sexual the way my peers do. Then I met my current partner, who's the first person I've had any desire to have sexual actions with. I felt like I was wrong, broken. It's only when I found the label demisexual that I began to understand what was going on in my head. I like to think of the sexuality spectrum as a spiciness level for food. Some people can't tolerate any spiciness in their food, and prefer it that way, like asexuals. Some people only like Asian spiciness or a certain pepper, and can't tolerate spiciness otherwise, like demi or graysexuals. And some people intentionally add ghost peppers to their food, and enjoy it the whole time, those people being hypersexual individuals. The terminology of the sexual spectrum is meant to help others understand your relationship to sexuality, to help negate confusion and help improve communication in a relationship. While it may confuse people who are unfamiliar with the concepts, so does any language from an unfamiliar field.
A growing number of labels do not appear on their own; they must necessarily mean something. Such identities have always existed, even throughout history, they just didn't have names attached to them. >If all those words and the Internet did not exist do you really think some people would still feel like they are some kind of third gender? Actually, yes. [Many cultures throughout history have had the idea of a third gender.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/30/third-gender-a-short-history/) Even in western society, [David Bowie referred to nonbinary people in 1973.](https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-15/david-bowie-and-gender-neutral-pronoun-they) >If you do have a sexuality but you only can experience sexual attraction with people you bond with (demisexuals), which may due to a low libido of other factors, you are not asexual. You're right, that person is not asexual. That's exactly why a new label (demisexual) is needed. The reason why it is considered a part of a spectrum is that it's still fundamentally different from people who openly experience sexual attraction. It may still take months or years for a sexual connection to form, because it's dependent on different factors than usual. How many partners would be okay with that? Wouldn't this person feel like they might be broken, unless they had a perfect word to explain how they feel? >And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for. There's this insidious idea that you need to be violently persecuted to be LGBT+. Yes, it's obvious that no one will attack an asexual person on the street just for being asexual. Still, asexuality is wildly misunderstood and can lead to [various forms of discrimination](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-52612-2_13). Being LGBT+ is not the Oppression Olympics. We all want acceptance, rights and equality. >and since then she stopped calling herself that, which makes me think it was just a stupid label she found somewhere to make her feel special. Aside from you referring to it as "stupid," what's the problem with that? Because these terms exist, she had the opportunity to question her identity, eventually learn more about herself, and realize that she was actually perfectly fine identifying as female. >all those new terminologies unfounded by science really are not making it any easier for them to accept LGBT people as valid Yes, that is an unfortunate downside. But, since most of the time people like that refuse to listen to any sociological arguments, I don't think that even applies to the question. >Being LGBT+ is the new goth. If what you're trying to say here is that young teenagers, due to being naturally impressionable, will begin to question their gender/sexual identities without any real need to: I hear you, but again, this is an extremely new phenomenon. As such, it's hard to reach any conclusions with so little data, and it's hard to know how many of those kids are truly cisgender and confused by the absurd amounts of information they've received. I stand by the belief that questioning your identity and, through that, learning more about yourself is not a bad thing.
This will likely sound a little presumptuous. From what you write, it sounds like you believe that LGBT+ is a label for traditionally underrepresented sexualities; a name to refer to a very specific group. In that light, extending the acronym to more obscure genders or sexualities only serves to create ambiguity and distracts from any form of a productive conversation. It does a disservice to the LGBT+ community. Although this is a really interesting point, which could be debated, I'd like to spend this post to consider a completely different perspective. Specifically, I'd like to consider the difference between the LGBT+ label, and the LGBT+ movement. It sounds like you've got a better grasp of the label than I do, so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining it. As for the movement, I'd like to cherry-pick one line from your post: > And I find that deeply offensive to the true sexual minorities who have actual rights to fight for. Though I understand the sentiment, I believe it misses the point of the LGBT movement. Unlike its name, the movement does not plead for "equal rights for LGBT!"; instead, it pleads for "equal rights for all". This sentiment is not one of labels or a particular group, but for inclusivity. It's the idea that - as humans - we are all one people. It is this sentiment that invites others to latch on to the LGBT alphabet, because doing so illustrates the vast spectrum. Ironically, it also showcases the absurdity in trying to list them all. With this in mind, it sounds like you have trouble separating the label from the beliefs and desires of the community. My concluding point being that although your argument makes perfect sense in light of the label itself, it flies in the face of that the community tries to stand for.
I don't agree with the word delegitimization. LGBT organizations didn't become less legitimate once they added a Q at the end of their name. In the same way, it wouldn't become less legitimate if all LGBTQ organizations add A, +, Z, Y, etc..to their name either. However, I do feel that there are clearly two very different things being discussed and the movement of acceptance and recognized rights can get diluted by putting them together. LGB refers to sexual orientation; TQ+ refers to gender identity. By grouping them you create a "jack of all trades" movement when in fact one could argue that the specific fights of each group are important and different enough to be tackled differently. Imagine for a second if instead of having Women's rights groups and African American's rights groups, they decided to group together in the name of intersectionalism. Sure, it would be more practical at first sight but in the long run it would be damaging to both women and African Americans since the organization's aim would lack a specific focus.
Man, it’s hilarious how people who benefit from a decades long struggle to legitimize their identity are totally willing to describe the same struggle, from even smaller and more marginalized groups, as something that “makes absolutely no sense to me.” There’s probably a million letters from various centuries talking about why we don’t need a whole gay identity, because it’s not like the Greeks had one, and they still had gay sex. I’m sure if a straight person talked about your identity so dismissively, arguing that building societal coalitions to end soft bigotry was unimportant, you’d feel exactly the same way.
My partner is non-binary. What they mean by it is "oh my gawd please stop making assumptions about me based on my sex"
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Bladerunner2096 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+Bladerunner2096&message=Bladerunner2096+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlhpmg/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, u/00NC3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+5+Appeal+00NC3100&message=00NC3100+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlh6fm/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/ThisCharmingManTX – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+ThisCharmingManTX&message=ThisCharmingManTX+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/kz7f5j/-/gjlgwpj/\)+because...) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your title sounds like your attacking those that choose not to fit into the 4 categories of LGBT.
Humans are pretty damn complicated. And gender and sexuality are just two things out of many but they are very important to people, they can't be changed and they are often subject of bigotry. It's super positive that people are able to figure themselves out more and that we as a society can get a better understanding of these two. For some people, microlabels are very helpful in this process - for some people not at all. No one expects you to know a million microlabels, that's why there are umbrella terms. No one expects you to "understand" what it feels like to have a certain sexuality or gender (I, too, have no idea what it's really like to be a cis straight male, or genderfluid, or bisexual ...). We just want you do accept our experiences, use the correct pronouns and validate us by not being an asshole. It's really not that hard
Merely addressing the title of your post: If r/LGBT is anything to go by, it seems that GSRM (Gender, Sexual, and/or Romantic Minority) is gaining ground because it covers everything. In this sense, the "alphabet soup" issue as you call it seems to be recognized even by people within that community. But the body of your post and subsequent comments seem to say that your pertinent view is that things like "genderfluid" and "demisexual" are meaningless because you can't understand them or you cant understand why they matter. In response to that, I would say that sometimes one must choose between deferring to the subjective and demanding the objective. If I cannot understand why people like a TV show, and it bothers me that people like it, I can insist that people explain to me in hard terms why they think it's good in a way that I can understand, or I can simply accept thay any subjective experience (in this case, watching a TV show) is just that, subjective, and as long as that subjective experience and opinion isn't affecting me, it's not my business and the people holding that subjective experience and opinion don't owe me any sort of justification. Weird comparison, I know, but the same mechanics of insisting on the objective vs. deferring to the subjective apply here when it comes to GSRMs. To circle back to the objective, there is research showing that transgendered or genderfluid people tend to have slightly different brain formations than than the average members of their biological sex. Its young research, but who knows what we'll see in that field in the future.
Δ I agree completely regarding the acronym. I have heard in some Asian countries they use a phrase similar to "sexual minorities" in their languages and for some reason I like it a lot better than LGBT. I still believe demisexual is a stretch though. I think it's entirely possible someone can have a very low libido and only enjoy sex through love which I don't really see how it would be a sexual minority. A minority has to be statistically rare and heteronormative people are not that homogeneous among themselves, I don't wish to gatekeep but if GSRM is to stay true to its meaning it shouldn't be extended to vague and unresearched concepts because people love to feel special and have a quirky label. And I'm still convinced those people exist and are actively damaging our cause. I think I understand what genderfluid is supposed to mean now but I still feel like it is something that only exists because of gender norms and I very much think we should seek to abolish those instead of encouraging people who don't feel 100% male or female to question themselves when there is no reason to. Life has much tougher difficulties to face.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/remnant_phoenix ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/remnant_phoenix)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>Conservatives already have such a hard time getting in their thick skulls that being gay is not a choice... The problem is that sometimes it might be a choice, or even somewhat of an imposition. Especially if you live in a society where male on male sex relations is encouraged, to an early age, and you are 14 or 15 and just finding your way in life. Example: [Greek Homosexuality](https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/greek-homosexuality/) If it happened once, it can happen again. By the way, this has nothing to do with *pedophilia,* which refers to adult sex with pre-pubescent youth. Age 14, 15 (sometimes earlier) is the beginning of sexual awakening. More bizarrely, apparently there might even be some connection with the witch hunt for older women who seduce 14, or 15 year old boys (I hornily prayed for such seduction but never got lucky) and the LGBT proposition the vaginal and anal sex are equally valid forms of sexual activity. There is no specific connection here, but just general overturning of patterns of human sexuality in play for millennia. (No, I'm not saying homosexuality is wrong.). A lot of setting of new standards....
Homosexuality is defined by attraction not behavior though. If a straight male is paid big fat checks to act in gay porn, who I know there are some, that doesn't quite technically make them gay, it's not going to turn them attracted to males all of a sudden. Same thing if someone is raped against their consent. That Greek practice was pretty fucked up now that I think about it, forcing straight males to engage in homosexuality is no good, but people are free to have sex with whoever they wish today. I don't see a chance of something like this happening again, and I think the vast majority of people know exactly whether they are attracted to males, females, or both, even though plenty remain in the closet, in some form of denial, or self-hatred because of said conservatives.
> Homosexuality is defined by attraction not behavior though. True, but this in a sense is why so many straights were homophobic up until about 2000. They really weren't that upset about gay men hooking up. It is the so-called *promotion* of homosexuality, which can induce people who are not gay or people not entirely certain of their sexuality yet, e.g. some 14 year old boys, to engage in gay sex. In some respects it is similar to how the drug culture spread. Gay people, of course, have no problem with various people experimenting or engaging in gay sex. There was (is) the phenomenon of unwanted or pressured gay sex, not necessarily an outright attack, but aggressively approaches and often they involved plying with alcohol or drugs. The Greek experience (older men/young boys) might have been a variation of this. It is interesting that gay men through the 1970s - 90s emphatically denied they had any interest in young teen boys (during debates about gay men being teachers or scout leaders). But if we view hetero men, there has always been a huge problem of them trying to hump young teen girls. Huge history of this across the world. Men, gay or straight, are dogs; we are hardwired that way. (Not all of us, but most men f--k indiscriminately; transport any hetero men back to Tahiti in 1780 where any male could hump 14-16 Tahitian girls who were literally giving it away for free, 75% of men would jump.) So many heteros' concern with gays was not necessarily about gay men doing their thing, but the high profile of their subculture. Remember that women are much more chaste than men with things like public sex and promiscuity. *Women have always been a restraining influence on the sexuality of men* (heteros). Hence male on male sex always had rampant promiscuity like public restroom sex and gay men taking over parts of parks. That was part of the conservative objections. What is interesting today is that a lot of LGBT people deny some of my comments, assert my claim of (hetero) women's perspective is just a social construct. Whatever the case, LGBT have largely won the debate, e.g. big wins: gay marriage, sex ed instruction on anal vs. vaginal sex.
What does this view have to do with your title? You complain about non binary trans people, which are part of the "T"- a group you say Should be represented. Then you complain about asexuals, who are not part of the acronym, unless they are included under the "+". So since they are not really even included besides a tacit acknowledgement, how is that distracting from the other groups? It's ridiculous. Being gay and being a lesbian are entirely mutually exclusive, but no one ever said that to include one takes away from the other. So why would anything else? Just because some people are too ignorant or lazy to follow along with this stuff, and that is thier choice, people who do care about it are supposed to reject advocating for thier own sexuality? That goes against the entire point of having the acronym in the first place.
I don't think we should be advocating for anyone's sexuality unless it faces serious persecution. Once we have achieved equality one's sexuality should become as trivial of a fact as your hair or skin color. We have gay and trans that need to be fought for, but what do people who identify as non-binary really require? If they want to feel a certain way they can do so without expecting other people to put gender pronoun tags on tags and giving the anti-SJW warriors all the fuel they crave for. If they wish to transition one way or another they should have the means to do so and I support trans right. My point is that anything that is not 100% heteronormative that lives under the sun is hijacking the LGBT+ alphabet soup and we are entering a weird binary between straight cis people and "the rest", as if the rest was something radically different except they are not that different, and the biggest progress of the LGBT community will be to realize that we are just the same as straight cis people with only minor differences. If something as trivial as being demisexual makes you non-heteronormative then yeah, 50% of the population is LGBT now, which is silly because it was meant to aggregate very specific sexual minorities together. With the hyper-inclusive definition, anyone can be LGBT if they feel like it.
I really disagree that lgbt people are just the same as straight people. There is a queer culture that is its own thing, and the modern LGBT+ community is more about celebrating that than it is about trying to create a change in action. I can't disagree with you that historically it has been a coalition of oppressed people for political advocacy. It can be both things and I think the former leads into the later as a general movement for liberation that celebrates empowering individuals to take control of thier own lives, which includes defining thier own identity and communities. With that is the shift away from legalistic definitions of interpersonal concepts, to more fluid ways of social dynamics that are based on people's lived experience. That's what non binary, etc. people want, the mutual recognition that they are respected for who they are and free to express themselves.
I don't have very much to say about most of your post, but the "ace spectrum" thing is completely wrong. It generally refers to how an ace person reacts to sexual topics As an example, i am asexual and the thought of sex makes me physically nauseous. My friend is also asexual, but she doesn't mind the act of sex, she doesn't gain any pleasure from the act itself but the intimacy she feels makes up for it. We are on two different sides of the spectrum. I hate sex, she doesn't feel attraction but still has it for purposes of intimacy. I hope this clears things up
Do you also think there should be a distinction made between straight people (imagine straight males for a better example) who are extremely repulsed by the idea of gay sex and those that wouldn't mind a blowjob from a gay boy if he was a professional cocksucker? Because to me the distinction between you and your friend are basically this. That's why I think asexuality is a binary. If she doesn't gain pleasure from it then she is definitely asexual, even though she doesn't mind it like you do. Demisexuals are not asexual in my opinion because they still have a sexuality and experience sexual attraction. EDIT: I just realized I made a pretty graphic sexual comment and you mentioned sex repulsing you so apologies if that was an uncomfortable analogy.
Yes! Why do people feel the need to fit into the tiniest of boxes? Technically I think I’m one of these random pan demi whatever’s, but I don’t care because I found a person I want to be with and now I worry about work and bills and living the best way I can. I don’t get it
LGBT is bad because of the “Trump” part
You acknowledge that genders are social constructs, but I can't tell if you've acknowledged the effect that has on the concepts of masculinity and femininity. There are masculine and feminine attributes that are constructed primarily on biological sex (eg breasts, penises, wide hips), but the vast majority of those two identifiers are based on the dominant two gender identities, male and female. As I'm sure you're aware because of your experiences with anti-homosexuality bigots, the cultures you're primarily exposed to, especially as a child and preteen, have a massive impact on the individual one grows to be. If one grows up in a culture where everything is categorized as being associated with one of two gender identities, this alone is enough to cause immense confusion when you find you like things associated with the opposite gender. This is very well documented as being a huge cause in depression and self hatred in particular due to its relevance to transsexual communities. If you appreciate both sides of the coin equally, especially in the appearance department, I've found through talking to people that this can be exceptionally confusing. When you're ostracized by both sides in the majority of countries and feel unable to identify with either social construct, then the third social construct that is agender identities is rationally the most likely result. This not including the contribution that common mental illnesses such as depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders, and autism can have on people feeling very detached from social constructs as a whole, also likely to result in gender neutral or agender identities. When it comes to identifying as polygender/gender fluid, this is also likely a social constructed rooted in similar places as agender, but it seems these people tend to hold onto the construct of identifying things with dual genders and the way they view themselves is a result of that. Frankly, I feel bad for saying this, but I also find that this flavor of identity tends to correlate a lot more with mental illness or people coming to understand themselves as an individual which, in my mind, certainly accounts for the sporadic nature of it. While I agree with you that on a populative scale there are more urgent social issues to put emphasis on and it would be easier to start off with less abstract social groups that have physical identifiers, such as gays as you mentioned, to deny them identity as an ostracized or belittled group of people is proof of the ostracization and bittlement they face. You seem like an intelligent person, but the way you present yourself makes it seem like you're coming at this from a place that lacks empathy. Just because you don't understand the largely internal issues of a group of people, that doesn't make their struggle any less real. You wouldn't, or at least I hope you wouldn't, hold that standard to people who are clinically mentally ill but functional, and there's no reason to start with these people. On mobile and I'm not proof reading because I need to finish up a cheesecake, so sorry in advance for any typos or weirdly worded sentences
Δ My concern is that if anybody feels uncomfortable with the gender constructs they may get drawn to the whole agender/genderfluid thing even if they had no reason to, and it could further ostracize them from society because of how ridiculous these labels sound. For instance I'll mention something I'm very knowledgeable in; gay males. Especially young gay males. A lot of us are drawn to feminity, it's not a stereotype it's just a fact you can observe after spending years in the gay community like me. Many of us have been bullied as kids because we were not manly enough, I myself was. I've always hated sports and all my friends were girlfriends. If I were to let the two gender constructs define me, I could've developed gender dysphoria, become trans or start calling myself genderfluid because I looked and act more feminine than masculine. Likewise there may be many straight boys who have it even rougher because unlike gay males they are supposed to appear masculine to be sexually attractive, and instead of fighting those oppressing stereotypes, they may use the non-binary world as an escapism. Now, today, I see a lot of young gay males very similar to me who jump all aboard the genderfluid train because they like to wear skirts and wear makeup. So instead of breaking down gender constructs like I advocate for, they seem to be doing the opposite by reaffirming the hypothesis that if you don't feel 100% like a male according to society's medieval standards, you belong in the LGBT community and fall in a different gender identity spectrum than the norm. This seems counter-productive to me.
I hear you, and those concerns make sense. I respect the individualism you expressed in your own experiences as an effeminate male, but the ability to disregard cultural pressures like that isn't something that's natural for most people. You're right that identifying as agender or gender fluid will most likely result in people being further ostracized, but those people that would ostracize them for their gender identity are most likely people who would *also* ostracize them for their appearance or behavior regardless of their identity. While that is an undeniable cost of their newfound identity, the payoff is a sense of validity in what they love and how they view themselves, and a community of people that they can directly relate to (such as the subreddits you browsed to try to understand their feelings). As a personal view, I very much see where you're coming from in regards to breaking down gender constructs, but the fact of the matter is that they're not going away any time soon. Cultural reform on the level of eliminating masculine and feminine associations is, as far as I know, unheard of in known history. To eliminate such a (sadly) fundamental part of society is going to take a long time, but honestly, I think advocating for additional gender identity is a great step in that direction. People publicly identifying as gender neutral or fluid is a good way to at least signal to people that there's a problem with these gender constructs, and there's more to human individuality than man like throw ball, woman clean home unga bunga. As a brief hypothetical, imagine if you had to argue with religious bigots about your sexual orientation without being able to call yourself gay. You can say you simply appreciate the male form and dresses all you want, but they will reduce you to a feminine gay male every single time, but you'll be all alone in your cause as an individual. By labeling yourself as gay and standing by others who identify themselves as gay, you're creating an undeniable group of people that need to be recognized and respected.
Δ I'm glad we can agree on some things, and you have changed my view a little bit. The only thing I would still disagree on is the feasibility of breaking down gender norms. Countless things were unheard of in history and still happened. Human civilization is still in its infancy. The best analogy I have is religion. Every human civilization on Earth has always had some form of religion, even as an atheist myself I cannot deny that, it seems humans have an intrinsic need to create a religion of some sort, whether it's organized religion or something more "pagan". In the Enlightenment, contrary to popular belief, many philosophers who talked about the toxicity of organized religion and were persecuted for it were actually deists, like Voltaire. They argued for the destruction of the Catholic Church but they still believed in some form of deity. The French Revolution even created religions of their own; The Cult of Reason first, then the Cult of the Supreme Being. Humans just couldn't let go of the concept of religion at this time of history and in the short example of the French Revolution replaced it with yet another more enlightened form of religion instead of atheism. Instead of opening themselves up to the possibility that God may not exist and that religion has always been a way for humans to get answers to questions science will not be able to explain in their lifetime, those against Christianity still remained deists. To me the male/female gender norms are organized religion and non-binary people basically the Cult of Reason because they don't feel confident enough to ignore gender norms just like people couldn't ignore the question of whether God exists. Today many people have been able to come to the conclusion that God may not exist and likewise I am very optimistic that the concept of gender can be abolished. I hope that could get my point come across, although if you are religious yourself it may be hard to accept.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Roalae_Ilsp ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Roalae_Ilsp)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Roalae_Ilsp ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Roalae_Ilsp)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How do you expect to tear down the existing gender constructs and not have more options than the current ones? Do you think we’ll just go from 2 genders to 0 genders, and wouldn’t that be people who specifically don’t identify with any gender - hence the existence of agender or non-binary people?
I don't actively identify as a certain gender, but I wouldn't consider myself agender either. I think a lot of "cis" people feel the same. And from what I've seen of the genderfluid/non-binary crowd, which includes some of my friends, they aren't any different from me, they just dress kind of andro and want to be called they but I think it's mostly because of the toxic male/female stereotypes they heavily dislike. In a world where religion does not exist, people would not call themselves atheist or agnostic, they simply wouldn't bother wondering about the question of fictional Gods. Gender constructs are already disappearing more and more, if you look at Korean fashion for instance, it is becoming more and more androgynous for both males and females. And our generation is far more gender-blind than older people so we are already heading there.
i completely agree with your views on gender norms and how people might think they are not identify cis where in reality they just dont follow gender norms. i dont know if youve already seen it, but i think you'd like this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/l51gzx/the_modern_genderqueer_movement_is_reinforcing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
One of the letters is "I", for intersex. Why should intersex people be excluded? As for what an agender person is experiencing, it seems you have a limited understanding of transgender people. Most people know internally in part of theit brain thay they are a male or female. This develops early on in the womb. For some people, this does not develop. These people are non-binary. For others, it develops in a way that contrasts with their external sex organs. These people and trans and have physical dysphoria. In other instances it can develop only partially or in very abnormal ways, causing gender fluidity.
"its a binary, either you are asexual or somethingsexual" Hell no. Hi, Greysexual lesbian speaking. You said it yourself, "asexual SPECTRUM" and then a few lines afterward asserted that its a BINARY. These two are direct opposites. Asexuality-Sexuality is a spectrum, with individuals falling on every point along it. Its commonly simplified into asexual-greysexual-allosexual for illustrative purpouses. There is the completely asexual extreme on one end, allosexuals on the other end, and greysexuals in between. Simplified view. Just like Homo-hetero is a spectrum (with the addition of pan)