Should non-binary genders be recognized?

[Twisted Fairytale]

In today's society, we have more individuals claiming themselves to be a non-binary (not boy / girl) gender; these include agender, genderfluid, pangender, and more. For example, individuals who identify as genderfluid may feel masculine sometimes and feminine other times.

Each of these genders can fall on a spectrum, as shown below.

Should these genders be recognized in government entities, and should they be accommodated?​

 

[John]

Feeling "feminine" does not make you a girl. You're a guy if you're born a guy, you're a girl if you're born a girl. Look at the reproduction abilities of both genders. Whichever you line up with is which gender you are. A guy can't preform a girl's ability and a girl can't preform a guy's ability . You can't change that much.

 

[Twisted Fairytale]

Feeling "feminine" does not make you a girl. You're a guy if you're born a guy, you're a girl if you're born a girl. Look at the reproduction abilities of both genders. Whichever you line up with is which gender you are. A guy can't preform a girl's ability and a girl can't preform a guy's ability . You can't change that much.

This brings up something else we need to clarify to have a good discussion: the difference between sex and gender.

Sex is determined by your physical sexual reproduction organs.

Gender is determined by your psychological affiliations to things commonly associated to certain genders by our society.

So, sex is physical, gender is psychological. Therefore, yes, if you're born with male sex organs, you are sexually a "Male." However, if you affiliate yourself more with the other gender both psychologically and emotionally, you may not fit under society's stigma of "Masculine" or "a Boy."

 

[Thomasss]

Oh gosh, I think this topic is a bit confusing for most.

However, I'll take a shot at it.



No, they should not be accommodated by the government, you either are a dude or a girl, the whole gender fluid thing has nothing to do with your gender, let alone sex. I do not even understand most of the other genders we have managed to create, but its just annoying really. No one is normal and no one is going to be the same as you, that does not mean you can go make your own gender and demand that the government accommodates you.

There are gays and lesbains and transgenders, sure. Gays are guys, lesbians are girls, and transgenders switched their sex. (I missed a few in the LGBT chain)

The government cannot even accommodate those who like the same gender, but there is a difference; we are actually different. 😛


The whole different gender thing is just BS, sorry. Genderfluid, really? So you feel more like a dude and then you feel like a chick? Sorry, thats not a gender but rather hormone. Just because your body acts differently does not make you a special gender..

Let the debate continue! 😛

 

[Twisted Fairytale]

[user]Thomje112[/user], my first thought when I read your post is to relate this to religion. According to your logic, the government should not accommodate any religion that we don't see as normal or logical. The only difference is that someone can choose or grow up with their religion, but gender isn't like that. It's almost like saying that being gay is a choice.

To make another quick religious relation:

No one is normal and no one is going to be the same as you, that does not mean you can go make your own gender and demand that the government accommodates you.

Flying Spaghetti Monster. A man was accommodated by the government for his religion worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was allowed to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head for the DMV photo. What's the difference between accommodating this non-familiar religion and non-familiar genders?

Therefore, if we're not going to accommodate different genders, what makes the government to accommodate different sexual orientations as well? A few years ago, we would have said "oh, just because you like boys as a boy doesn't make you special, it's just BS." However, people have become to accept that not everyone likes the opposite sex. People now are starting to accept that not everyone feels like their sex, or the role that society has put their sex in.

 

[John]

[user]Thomje112[/user], my first thought when I read your post is to relate this to religion. According to your logic, the government should not accommodate any religion that we don't see as normal or logical. The only difference is that someone can choose or grow up with their religion, but gender isn't like that. It's almost like saying that being gay is a choice.

To make another quick religious relation:

No one is normal and no one is going to be the same as you, that does not mean you can go make your own gender and demand that the government accommodates you.

Flying Spaghetti Monster. A man was accommodated by the government for his religion worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was allowed to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head for the DMV photo. What's the difference between accommodating this non-familiar religion and non-familiar genders?

Therefore, if we're not going to accommodate different genders, what makes the government to accommodate different sexual orientations as well? A few years ago, we would have said "oh, just because you like boys as a boy doesn't make you special, it's just BS." However, people have become to accept that not everyone likes the opposite sex. People now are starting to accept that not everyone feels like their sex, or the role that society has put their sex in.

Not to draw your debate off topic, being a homo is a choice. Anyone could decide they do/don't want to be one.

However, you're correct that whether the government excepts something is solely based upon society's opinion of the act.

I still disagree with your logic. I could walk around with badge, taser and gun, but does that make me a cop? Should I be allowed to do that? The obvious answer is, no, just because I have a certain belief system does not mean I should get extra attention. The same thing applies to these gender things. Just because I have made up in my mind that I am a woman (or a cop), doesn't make me one.

 

[Thomasss]

[user]Thomje112[/user], my first thought when I read your post is to relate this to religion. According to your logic, the government should not accommodate any religion that we don't see as normal or logical. The only difference is that someone can choose or grow up with their religion, but gender isn't like that. It's almost like saying that being gay is a choice.

To make another quick religious relation:

No one is normal and no one is going to be the same as you, that does not mean you can go make your own gender and demand that the government accommodates you.

Flying Spaghetti Monster. A man was accommodated by the government for his religion worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was allowed to wear a spaghetti strainer on his head for the DMV photo. What's the difference between accommodating this non-familiar religion and non-familiar genders?

Therefore, if we're not going to accommodate different genders, what makes the government to accommodate different sexual orientations as well? A few years ago, we would have said "oh, just because you like boys as a boy doesn't make you special, it's just BS." However, people have become to accept that not everyone likes the opposite sex. People now are starting to accept that not everyone feels like their sex, or the role that society has put their sex in.

There is a reason why state and church cannot mix, the government should not and cannot go based off of religion, merely because they are the government and do not have the right to interfere with religion in anyway.

And the whole spaghetti thing was not the government. It was the state, which is different. 😛

And that has nothing to do with this, the other genders are not worshiping anyone, they are changing their gender based off of hormonal changes.

 

[pandaa]

Not to draw your debate off topic, being a homo is a choice. Anyone could decide they do/don't want to be one.

So is being heterosexual, in that case. If you can't imagine yourself being able to stop liking women, and starting to like men, then you shouldn't expect the same from someone with a different orientation.

Back on topic, I'm really fine with however you want to identify, or what you want to feel attracted to. The only thing I'm not fine is with people who say they identify as something non-human. I can understand being attracted to other types of people, other sexes, etc, but it just doesn't seem to make too much sense to me that you're an animal (or whatever) in a human's body. I don't know if this is a really a thing outside of tumblr, but I get the feeling that it's more of an attention thing at that point.

 

[Twisted Fairytale]

I could walk around with badge, taser and gun, but does that make me a cop? Should I be allowed to do that?

Obviously not, that's illegal. No one is going to challenge that because we've agreed upon it as a society, based on Rousseau's hypothetical Social Contract Theory.

The obvious answer is, no, just because I have a certain belief system does not mean I should get extra attention.

It's not extra attention that I'm asking about, it's the act of recognizing them. For instance, many states are starting to recognize same-sex marriages. They're not getting special attention, but equal rights.

And the whole spaghetti thing was not the government. It was the state, which is different. 😛

And that has nothing to do with this, the other genders are not worshiping anyone, they are changing their gender based off of hormonal changes.

I think you were missing my point of comparison. I wasn't suggesting that the genders were religions, but that the state already is recognizing religions and sexual orientations already. What's stopping them from genders?

In addition, it was the government. It doesn't have to be the federal government, but it was a state government.

---

I think it's important to go ahead and define gender as well. According to the World Health Organization, gender "refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women."

Let's take the situation where Tommy is born and assigned the male sex at birth. However, he has always enjoyed playing with girls, dressing up, and loves the color pink. For a second, you may think that these things do not make him "girly," but take a moment to revisit the definition above. These are all traits that we've applied to the female gender-role. Therefore, if anyone enjoys or relates to these traits, they're subscribing to the female gender-role, regardless if they're "just things he can enjoy."

So what is to say that Tommy can not dress, act, and identify as a girl if that's what they really feel and receive the same protections and accommodations that others receive who identify as what they were assigned to at birth?

 

[Deleted member 1609]

Not to draw your debate off topic, being a homo is a choice. Anyone could decide they do/don't want to be one.

At what point, then, did you decide to be heterosexual?

 

[John]

I could walk around with badge, taser and gun, but does that make me a cop? Should I be allowed to do that?

Obviously not, that's illegal. No one is going to challenge that because we've agreed upon it as a society, based on Rousseau's hypothetical Social Contract Theory.

It's the same principle. Pretending to be a cop is rather well looked against, as this "gender changing" thing you're talking about was (and still kind-of is) widely looked at negatively in society.

The obvious answer is, no, just because I have a certain belief system does not mean I should get extra attention.

It's not extra attention that I'm asking about, it's the act of recognizing them. For instance, many states are starting to recognize same-sex marriages. They're not getting special attention, but equal rights.

What kind of "recognition/equality" do you want? If Ben fits this profile you're talking about. Should he be allowed to do things like use women's locker rooms? Or bathrooms?

And the whole spaghetti thing was not the government. It was the state, which is different. 😛

And that has nothing to do with this, the other genders are not worshiping anyone, they are changing their gender based off of hormonal changes.

I think you were missing my point of comparison. I wasn't suggesting that the genders were religions, but that the state already is recognizing religions and sexual orientations already. What's stopping them from genders?

In addition, it was the government. It doesn't have to be the federal government, but it was a state government.

---

I think it's important to go ahead and define gender as well. According to the World Health Organization, gender "refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women."

Let's take the situation where Tommy is born and assigned the male sex at birth. However, he has always enjoyed playing with girls, dressing up, and loves the color pink. For a second, you may think that these things do not make him "girly," but take a moment to revisit the definition above. These are all traits that we've applied to the female gender-role. Therefore, if anyone enjoys or relates to these traits, they're subscribing to the female gender-role, regardless if they're "just things he can enjoy."

So what is to say that Tommy can not dress, act, and identify as a girl if that's what they really feel and receive the same protections and accommodations that others receive who identify as what they were assigned to at birth?

HE is not a girl by any means. Just because a guy wears pink and likes playing with girls doesn't make him a girl, or anything close. Pretending to be something does not make you one. That was the entire point of the cop thing. I can pretend to be anything I want, but it doesn't make me one. "Acting" like a girl doesn't make you one. Nor will it ever.

 

[Cosmic]

Sounds like a bunch of neo-liberal, Obama-loving hooey to me! :lol:


iMO, you can identify yourself however you want to, just as long as you don't fault anyone for using the incorrect pronoun based on your physical appearence, or anything like that. 😛 When it comes to the government, I think they have better things to do than concern themselves over what people identify as.

 

[Deleted member 1609]

Sounds like a bunch of neo-liberal, Obama-loving hooey to me! :lol:

I don't think you understand exactly what "neoliberal" means.

ne·o·lib·er·al
ˌnēōˈlibərəl/
adjective
1.
relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

Also, Obama is not progressive in the least in this area. He explicitly opposed same-sex marriage until 2012 when he needed the issue to try to win back the liberal vote.

 

[Thomasss]

I really do not see why the government should accommodate for these new genders, I do not see why you need to be something other than a man or women, however that'st just me. I support transgenders and people who become the other gender, but really all these genders are just something made up without any scientific meaning behind it. I feel old when I really am young, that does not mean I can make that a gender.

My thoughts anyway, and yes, the government as PLENTY more to do than fight with the country on how these people identify themselves as.

 

[Cosmic]

One thing I'd like to hear clarification on: what exactly is the government currently doing to enforce binary genders that it should not be doing? A couple things come to my mind, namely marriage laws and taxation laws.

In either case, I don't think it's really a battle which the conservatives should bother fighting. So what if the government relaxes these restrictions? You don't lose anything. You should not have any say in whether two people get married. If they are two consenting adults, they should be the ones who decide whether they are right for each other. Allowing the government to decide who marries who sounds like big government to me, which conservatives are against. Marriage is really just a legal convenience. If you want to belog to a religion which says that for two people to be married, one has to be a boy and one has to be a girl, that is yor right.

I personally think that people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to do, unless the government has a very good reason not to allow them to do it.


@Snobo: I was being sarcastic 😛

 

[Twisted Fairytale]

HE is not a girl by any means. Just because a guy wears pink and likes playing with girls doesn't make him a girl, or anything close. Pretending to be something does not make you one. That was the entire point of the cop thing. I can pretend to be anything I want, but it doesn't make me one. "Acting" like a girl doesn't make you one. Nor will it ever.

Refer back to the definition I posted earlier of gender, "the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women." People who identify as a non-binary gender are not "pretending" to be anything, they are being what makes them the most comfortable. If individuals who seriously identify asexual are "pretending," you could be "pretending" to be a boy, heterosexual, etc. However, we know that you're not pretending, you're actually a male, heterosexual, and whatever else, but no one is claiming that you're pretending.

One thing I'd like to hear clarification on: what exactly is the government currently doing to enforce binary genders that it should not be doing? A couple things come to my mind, namely marriage laws and taxation laws.

These two are great examples. Another that comes to mind is allowing an "Other" gender on government documents. In an ideal world, we would have gender-neutral bathrooms available in government buildings or incentives for businesses to accommodate these needs. However, I understand that's not viable at the moment with money and how our government can't decide if it's liberal or conservative half the time.

 

[Renard]

If they are comfertable that way then sure. I have no problem with people identifaying with a gender than they are born with, its just them and how they feel. If feealings aren't bad then why is it so bad they identify another gender then they are born with? Its not in my books.

 

[Cosmic]

Guys, I have an important announcement to make! 😀

Also, this discussion needs a bump, IMO. 😛

These two are great examples. Another that comes to mind is allowing an "Other" gender on government documents.

Don't see much of a reason why government documents should ask gender, TBH. Sex would be useful for medical reasons, but not really gender. No point, really.

 

[WaeVski]

I've always liked this "genderbread person" diagram.

Health organizations need to know your biological sex -- that should be obvious.

If an organization wants to be able to identify you by looks -- a police report, maybe -- then they are concerned with your gender expression.

However, any organization which is interested in your identity should be concerned with your gender.

It's probably a point of contention whether or not the government should bother keeping our gender identities on file. But it's certainly good social practice to respect others' gender labels.

 

[Kaynil]

I honestly think that more than making up more spaces for all the array of gender spectrum, we should perhaps stop holding so dearly the social constructs of roles, traits and expectations from genders. I think that is what causes many people feel they don't belong. Back to Tommy I have put in bold the part that bugs me:

Let's take the situation where Tommy is born and assigned the male sex at birth. However, he has always enjoyed playing with girls, dressing up, and loves the color pink. For a second, you may think that these things do not make him "girly," but take a moment to revisit the definition above. These are all traits that we've applied to the female gender-role. Therefore, if anyone enjoys or relates to these traits, they're subscribing to the female gender-role, regardless if they're "just things he can enjoy."

I think our whole view in two genders is skewed. I think as a society we need to let go of those ideas of traits, roles and preferences as something static that define genders. Wouldn't Tommy feel better if no one questioned his sex just because of what he likes?

Gender is like stone coats for sex. I think they could go altogether or stop rotating between if you;'re a boy or a girl. Why can't we simply accept that pink is colour, that some people are fragile and some are bulky, sme are gracious and some are loud, leaving their genitals outside. I think many things we put to either gender is merely human.

I think that gingerbread is pretty cool by the way, it helps to visualize better all that is involved. I had my time to be confusing and wonder what the hell was wrong with me. I've never been one out all of the way but I've had my moments of contemplation when people keep confusing my gender, I keep getting the opposite gender in quizzes and my friends do joke about me "counting more" like a pal of the gender I am not for opinions and stuff. But I also have been told I have traits related to my gender. Thus, I can never fit completely with the stereotypes in in either side.

Long ago I let that off my head. I am. That's it. Government doesn't need to know or further classify me. I am happy to tell them my sex. I just hope at some point we'll be just people that won't need to cling to a strict set of expectations based on what set we were born with.

Of course, the second best is to do our best to try people with respect regardless of their way to express their gender.