Nonbinary gender discussion

That would probably be the least of their concerns

I thought the correct way would be:

If you meet a nurse. Ask them how much they earn.
If you meet a pilot. Ask them if they drank before the flight.
If you meet a teacher. Ask them how they keep their sanity.

I am beginning to understand why non-binary would request they / them based on all this discussion. I appreciate the honest conversation and lack of judgement. I may not agree with changing language, but I have no problems with what anyone wants to be.

I have met a few MTF transgender in my life, as friends. They were always very clearly presenting as female, so out of respect, I used the female pronouns. No harm done.

I have never met a non-binary person in person that I know of.

2 Likes

OK, I’ll switch from meat to soy too (temporarily), and pretend I voted for Hillary.

So what’s in the Finley Times Style Manual? :thinking: :thought_balloon:

When the minority gender in any given occupation is below 20%, use the majority gender only and pooh-pooh people who violate this rule. When the minority reaches 20%, use the majority gender, don’t pooh-pooh those who use “he or she”, but do pooh-pooh those who use the minority gender. When the minority reaches 40%, use either gender and don’t pooh-pooh anyone. Is that about right?

It doesn’t matter if female coal miners exist; any reader, male or female, will have an image of a coal miner in his or her head, viz., a large male with a flat cap. Writing ‘she’ scribbles all over that image with a black marker and makes the reader construct a new one.

I remember my classmates and me laughing our heads off at the phrase cave people (as opposed to cave men) as recently as the 1990’s. Now itsounds completely normal to me. Dominant ideas change.

How many keys have you hit explaining why you don’t want to hit many keys? :doh:

Americans speak English is generally true but doesn’t come close to telling the whole story. The fact that it doesn’t tell the whole story doesn’t make it untrue, just as your generic male coal miners are not unreasonable, but the fact that it’s not untrue doesn’t make various languages are spoken in America untrue, and similarly coal miners are not all men happens to be true.

For me it doesn’t. There are female coal miners, period. There are male nurses, period. These are objective facts. Liberation is a state of mind.

Highlighted the key word. :slight_smile:

Returning to the no-arms-and-legs example, I hope you’ll accept that that is unequivocally a genetic mistake. Anyone born with this condition has a big problem. I don’t think many people would be unkind enough to suggest they should be quietly put down for the good of the species; they often turn out to be very inspirational people. OTOH one would not be very inspirational if one spent the rest of one’s life whining and moaning, even though you’d have massive justification for doing so. Sometimes life sucks, and it sucks for some people more than others.

I take it you’re not into the triple helix theory.

Not at all! The era of celebrity babies predates Andy, and it hasn’t ended.

I mean the overall pool, for basically everyone. Of course not everyone has convenient access to the entire human population, especially as upward socioeconomic mobility keeps decreasing (compared to half a century ago), but the average human’s geographical mobility has never been greater, and long distance communication has never been easier/faster/cheaper. Also, the world has never come closer to having a common language than it is now.

I think your perception of humanity is based more on your own experience and whatever locker room talk (or “pub talk” shall we say) was common when you were growing up than on the last few decades of sexological research.

To put it plainly, I think there are way more Milkers and Rockets and what not out there than you realize. But I’ll let people (and cows and raccoons and what not) speak for themselves.

That sounds like something a Tralfamadorian might have said before the enlightening experience of meeting that odd human couple. :2cents:

Sorry to hear that he or she is such a trespass upon your right to exist that it makes you wish a chai latte upon me, or something. :thinking: :confused: :idunno:

1 Like

Good grief guys, is this really so difficult? Use your imagination instead of picking holes in my less-than-specific example.

Who you prefer as a romantic partner has little to do with it. I have zero chances with Zoe Saldana or Mila Kunis. The guy in the lesbian’s club would probably be perfectly happy to hit on any of them, especially if he has his beer goggles on. None of them would have any interest in him. So he’s going home alone. End of story.

If you really need this spelled out: people who are not entirely male or female will not be attractive to people at either pole of the male-female spectrum. People who are neuter (it is a thing, or nearly so) have a low or nonexistent libido, which would be a big showstopper in any romantic relationship. Uncorrected hermaphrodites would be - damn, how do I put this delicately? - physically unattractive to people with normal genitalia. People who are mechanically sterile would be unattractive to people who want children. And so on and so on.

I think maybe some of you are confusing ‘neuter’ with ‘bisexual’, which as Rocket suggested would be a whole different ball game.

Likewise. I have tomboy employee who’s perfectly happy with ‘she’ and a trans friend for whom ‘she’ comes naturally.

Hence my assertion that the genuinely-neuter population is vanishingly small, and the subset of them who want (or even need) a new pronoun is even smaller.

1 Like

So, I’m disagreeing to this part.

Note: I’m not confusing nonbinary genders with bisexual.

Once again, Finner dictates the world’s behaviour. How the jeez do YOU know what will or won’t be attractive to anyone (except you)???

Jeez Louise, you just don’t get it.

“Neuter” and “nonbinary” are, once again, two entirely different things.

Again, as I said before, “identity” and “preference” are completely different issues. Your repeated inability (or refusal, maybe) to appreciate this makes all of your points here meaningless.

One last time.
Identity is how you feel.
Preference is what you like.
They are entirely unrelated.
A person considers themself a woman.
That’s identity.
That woman, or, in this case, “she” can like boys, or girls, or boys dressed like girls, or girls dressed like boys, or dudes with vaginas, or hot busty babes with fully functioning meat & two veg, or heaven forbid, genetically enhanced frigging raccoons.
NONE of that has any reflection on the fact that she considers herself a woman.

1 Like

Me too. Finley’s obviously never spent any time in prison. :sunglasses:

There may not be a direct correspondence, but saying they’re “entirely unrelated” is a stretch.

1 Like

Once again, Rocket cannot cope with fuzzy categories.

I’m not dictating anything to anyone - I’m just making an observation that should be astoundingly obvious. If you personally would bang pretty much anything that’s bangable, that’s your business. A majority, as yyy said, have filters.

I realise that, but I can’t keep typing out endless lists of precise adjectives for the same reason I can’t be bothered to type he/she. The same reasoning applies: most vanilla-straight people would not be particularly interested in a nonbinary (whatever that even means) partner. Some might be open to the idea, but it probably wouldn’t end well.

Yes. But I was speaking specifically of finding partners, where one has a bearing on the other.

Actually I have, but not with anyone who thinks I have a purty mouth :sunglasses:

Incidentally: for those who like sci-fi, Ursula K LeGuin wrote a lot of very good stories around these themes.

1 Like

What I don’t understand is why this matters (so much). Does everything come down to maximizing dating opportunities?

It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. The whole argument arose out of my assertion that non-binary people are at a disadvantage in various ways. Their reduced dating pool was just an off-the-cuff example.

So is it safe to say that it doesn’t matter if non-binary people are at a disadvantage in various ways?

What do you mean by “doesn’t matter?”. To whom? Everyone has their own personal advantages and disadvantages, some people have fewer of the one than the other, and we all have different ways of dealing with them. Such is life.

Exactly, so why has this taken on such importance in the discussion? I’m honestly wondering if it has any significance.

yeah, it’s a bit of a tangent really. I can’t even remember what we were talking about :slight_smile: I think it was something to do with the definitions of “normal” and “mistakes”.

1 Like

That’s right. Well, as you said, there’s lots of things in life that people have to deal with. Forcing oneself to match a strictly traditional gender role if one is not so inclined may not necessarily work out so well when trying to find a partner.

The problem is this.

Sex is in the body. It’s obvious, except for a very, very small number of cases, most of which are then surgically made into one or the other sex, physically.

Gender is in the mind of ONE person. In the case of non-binary people, it’s not obvious to others unless it is explicitly stated.

Language is a collective thing in the minds of MILLIONS of people who speak English or Chinese or whatever language. There is a general agreement among people who grew up using a particular language (native speakers) of what is, or is not, correct usage in that language. In English, correct usage for a singular pronoun is “he” or “she”. Over time, languages can change, but it takes time – a lot of it – to make a change that becomes really entrenched as unconsciously correct.

So after having literally hundreds of thousands of hours of input in English, reading extensively in English, and all that time encountering only a small fraction of language that uses “them” (and having it almost always be a way to avoid gender, not to refer to a specific person) most people literally cannot speak naturally AND use a “preferred pronoun”. “They” at least is coming into the language, but asking someone to stop and think about every single sentence and substitute “zi” for the singular pronoun is ridiculous. Not in the request, if it’s that important to the person, but in the expectation that it’s ever going to work, no matter how willing the speaker might be.

Any time you substitute a new rule that replaces something that’s already well acquired in a language, you break fluency. Ask somebody to tell you what they did yesterday in five sentences, then tell you five things they’ll do tomorrow, but not to use any words that contain the letter “r”. Pretty much the same thing. People have too much on their minds to use a language they are not – or are not being allowed to be – fluent in.

8 Likes

If I ever meet someone who requests a preferred pronoun I will give it an honest go, but as you say it’s not likely to happen. I suppose I can only try zir best.

You mean you’re not in this fellow’s league?

(They’re just friends now :slight_smile::heart::slight_smile: but an eight year run counts for something!)

1 Like