[Redway]

Inspired by the recent Bud-Light shenanigan. I thought I'd string it out into an actual thread.

[Oliver_W]

Gender as a whole is a load of nonsense. It's nothing more than a social construct, we are our bodies, nothing more.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Gender as a whole is a load of nonsense. It's nothing more than a social construct, we are our bodies, nothing more.

Something a lot of people forget is that clothes/accessories (just to use that as example now) that are highly feminised as we know them now were originally intended for men. Make-up, wigs, high-heels and even the colour pink were originally intended for men. As far as contrary doctrine goes you get certain Nigerian churches (Deeper Life being a notorious example, not that the church as a whole is too bad) banning women from wearing trousers despite the fact that hardly anyone wore trousers up-until about 200 years ago (and even then they were only made for a specific purpose, i.e., horse-riding) and even places that have earlier history and experiences with trousers often reserved them for women (India being a prime example). They try and push post-colonial indoctrination that only applied to a very particular time in history in the grand scheme of things as not just "African culture" but the actual word of God and we all know that ain't it. Even the overseeing superintendent himself (pastor Kumuyi) low-key admits that and actually wants to abolish all that crap. I can understand the bit about not wearing jewellery in church and women covering their hair in the house of God but the rest is just copy-cat truckster garbage. And it’s not like the men in the Bible ever wore trousers so y’know.

"Non-binary" per-se is utter nonsense, too.

[LeatherTrumpet]

For the narcissist, the world is a mirror. The narcissist must always see ‘his
“grandiose self” reflected in the attentions of others’,. So it is with the
trans movement. It expects every realm of society – every awards ceremony,
every woman’s space, every linguistic tradition – to bow and scrape before its
post-truth, ahistorical belief that people are whatever sex they say they are.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/0...-of-nonbinary/

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Redway

Something a lot of people forget is that clothes/accessories (just to use that as example now) that are highly feminised as we know them now were originally intended for men. Make-up, wigs, high-heels and even the colour pink were originally intended for men. As far as contrary doctrine goes you get certain Nigerian churches (Deeper Life being a notorious example, not that the church as a whole is too bad) banning women from wearing trousers despite the fact that hardly anyone wore trousers up-until about 200 years ago (and even then they were only made for a specific purpose, i.e., horse-riding) and even places that have earlier history and experiences with trousers often reserved them for women (India being a prime example). They try and push post-colonial indoctrination that only applied to a very particular time in history in the grand scheme of things as not just "African culture" but the actual word of God and we all know that ain't it. Even the overseeing superintendent himself (pastor Kumuyi) low-key admits that and actually wants to abolish all that crap. I can understand the bit about not wearing jewellery in church and women covering their hair in the house of God but the rest is just copy-cat truckster garbage.

"Non-binary" per-se is utter nonsense, too.

Clothes mean next to nothing. Some fully grown men wander around in nightshirts, doesn't mean they're going to bed

[parmnion]

You are either a male, female. Gay male, or gay female. That's where I stand.

You cant be a nothing.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Clothes mean next to nothing. Some fully grown men wander around in nightshirts, doesn't mean they're going to bed

It’s a pity the likes of Deeper Life spoil their image just by enabling the cycle of man-made indoctrination (‘don’t wear this; wear a skirt that’s so long it extends to the hell-fire we’re trying to avoid instead; ah, you mustn’t wear that one, o’). As a church itself (putting all the indoctrination aside) it’s perfectly fine, potentially one of the best, but women are really limited when it comes to clothes in churches like that. Guys/men get it too but on nowhere near the same level and it just reeks of oppression that doesn’t need to be there. Pity as the teaching itself is otherwise actually really good but considering there are people who’ll run to the toilet and call the police on a pastor during extended services for “keeping them hostage,” oppressing women in 2023 doesn’t look too good. People wouldn’t even mind staying long as much if they could dress in a way that didn’t make them look like an underpaid house-maid sleeping in long coco-sacs. The police are bound to make an arrest in that church one day but only for crimes against fashion.

I’m just using the church as an example anyway. But I’m sure you catch my drift.

[hijaxers]

Its all nonsense and they can shove their pronouns where the sun don't shine.

[Redway]

I wouldn’t say gender per-se (tangible gender) means nothing whatsoever (not that those innate differences aren’t over-exaggerated) but that’s neither here nor there with regard to what I’m getting at with the crux of this thread. One thing I’d say for that though is that when you start to see someone of the opposite sex (I mean, depending on which way you swing, really) as a fully-fleshed person with an actual personality than a sex object you start to view them on their own terms (which is how everyone is entitled to be on some level) and not just within the rigid box of men and women.

There are some things that only apply to women and certain things that only apply to men (or at least predominantly) just by mere virtue of gender and stuff like that does need to be acknowledged but the way young ‘wannabe-alpha’ lads often talk about women comes from the fact that they’re often not socialised to see young women as actual people. They want to be earning 100k+ a year in fraud-money and have a pretty lady who they can eventually marry, cheat on, tell to shut up whenever they feel like it and expect to do all their laundry and cooking for them. Having a bit (or a lot) of N.S.A. fun is absolutely fine but when I’ve had to listen to other guys banging on about their increasing body count when they’ve already got a main woman/young woman on the go and had to pretend to be interested doesn’t bear thinking about. But to them “girlfriend” might mean “main side-ting on da go until I’m actually ready to get married” so in one sense I can’t even judge them too much. But what I do know fo-sho is that slag-shaming while actually being an out-and-out stud-cheat with actual strings attached (not just a high B.C. that’s accumulated over time) is not the one. I know it’s always been there but guys under the age of 30 often talk about it like it’s totally normal for the guy to cheat. Not even an ounce of shame or embarrassment. They don’t value the true meaning of relationships anymore.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Redway

I wouldn’t say gender per-se (tangible gender) means nothing whatsoever (not that those innate differences aren’t over-exaggerated) but that’s neither here nor there with regard to what I’m getting at with the crux of this thread. One thing I’d say for that though is that when you start to see someone of the opposite sex (I mean, depending on which way you swing, really) as a fully-fleshed person with an actual personality than a sex object you start to view them on their own terms (which is how everyone is entitled to be on some level) and not just within the rigid box of men and women. There are some things that only apply to women and certain things that only apply to men (or at least predominantly) just by mere virtue of gender and stuff like that does need to be acknowledged but the way young ‘wannabe-alpha’ lads often talk about women comes from the fact that they’re often not socialised to see young women as actual people. They want to be earning 100k+ a year in fraud-money and have a pretty lady who they can eventually marry, cheat on, tell to shut up whenever they feel like it and expect to do all their laundry and cooking for them. Having a bit (or a lot) of N.S.A. fun is absolutely fine but when I’ve had to listen to other guys banging on about their increasing body count when they’ve already got a main woman/young woman on the go and had to pretend to be interested doesn’t bear thinking about. But to them “girlfriend” might mean “side-ting until I’m actually ready to get married” so in one sense I can’t even judge them too much.

I can see them as someone who believes they wish to be neither, not someone who is neither. That's what I would say to them.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Gender as a whole is a load of nonsense. It's nothing more than a social construct, we are our bodies, nothing more.

That's a little reductive; for example language itself is "nothing more than a social construct" ... or all sorts of concepts; friendship, family, love, any and all forms of entertainment, art, philosophy. I think it's quite unambiguous that social constructs, while yes indeed "constructs", are nonetheless very real.

My stance on the gender binary is actually quite different to (and yet related to) my stance on the ability or even the need to change sex ... I think the two are entirely different and have become confusingly intertwined in ways that were never necessary. And in ways that (from an LGBTQ perspective) actually completely clash. Transgenderism (physical/hormonal transition) for example as a concept is completely incompatible with a belief in the gender spectrum (non-binary nature of gender).

Short answer: I believe that gender is 100% non binary, I believe that sex is 100% binary and how an individuals gender manifests has NOTHING to do with their sex, pronouns, or whether they're a man or a woman.

Interestingly I think this seems to have been BETTER understood, or was at least starting to be better understood, back in the 70's and 80's. For example David Bowie (and others), did not conform to the gender binary at all in a huge number of ways and yet they were very clear on still being men/males, and that their external presentation and personality traits had nothing to do with whether or not they were "still men". That's exactly how it should be. Should men (and women) be able to dress and present however they want, wear make-up, engage in non-gender-stereotyped activities whenever they want? Absolutely. And they should be able to do so whilst still being their natal sex.

IMO we've gone absolutely arse-backwards into a belief that if one does not conform to gendered stereotypes (of appearance, personality, activity and presentation) then that means they can't be that thing and must be "other". And that if they want to fully self-realise they need to literally physically alter themselves, and be "grouped" with whichever sex happens to match their stereotyped personality traits most closely. It's just nonsense. Gender presentation should be whatever people want it to be without judgement, things that need to be segregated by sex should continue to be segregated by sex.

Like I said I think society understood that better at one point or was getting there. A man can hate football and "other manly stuff" and like "frilly girly stuff" and still be a man ffs. I actually find a lot of the current gender zeitgeist really troublingly judgemental, oddly enough. "Males if you don't like BLOKE STUFF you are actually a girl! Get it sorted out silly!" - "Females, if you like BUTCH MAN STUFF you are actually a boy why do you have boobs and where is your beard??"

[parmnion]

You can call a turnip a Swede all you want, it will still be a turnip.

[Soldier Boy]

Also - EVERYONE is gender non-binary. Any person who was not non-binary (100% masculine or 100% feminine) would be a cartoon caricature, not a real human being.

Again the idea that this means there's a gender tipping point that suddenly alters one's sex, or that pronouns mean ... really anything at all ... is verging on impossible to fathom out.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by parmnion

You can call a turnip a Swede all you want, it will still be a turnip.

Stop denying Swedes exist you TERF

[Redway]

I remember filling out an application (a serious one) the other day and gender-wise there were options treble Methusala’s age in number between female and male.

Nah, nah, nah. This has gone too far.

[Soldier Boy]

Originally Posted by Redway

I remember filling out an application (a serious one) the other day and gender-wise there were options treble Methusala’s age in number between female and male.

Nah, nah, nah. This has gone too far.

On forms it really is just about over-the-top inclusion no matter how you look at it - there's no need for anything but, at most, "male/female/other". With a box to fill in for "other" if so inclined.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

That's a little reductive; for example language itself is "nothing more than a social construct" ... or all sorts of concepts; friendship, family, love, any and all forms of entertainment, art, philosophy. I think it's quite unambiguous that social constructs, while yes indeed "constructs", are nonetheless very real.

My stance on the gender binary is actually quite different to (and yet related to) my stance on the ability or even the need to change sex ... I think the two are entirely different and have become confusingly intertwined in ways that were never necessary. And in ways that (from an LGBTQ perspective) actually completely clash. Transgenderism (physical/hormonal transition) for example as a concept is completely incompatible with a belief in the gender spectrum (non-binary nature of gender).

Short answer: I believe that gender is 100% non binary, I believe that sex is 100% binary and how an individuals gender manifests has NOTHING to do with their sex, pronouns, or whether they're a man or a woman.

Interestingly I think this seems to have been BETTER understood, or was at least starting to be better understood, back in the 70's and 80's. For example David Bowie (and others), did not conform to the gender binary at all in a huge number of ways and yet they were very clear on still being men/males, and that their external presentation and personality traits had nothing to do with whether or not they were "still men". That's exactly how it should be. Should men (and women) be able to dress and present however they want, wear make-up, engage in non-gender-stereotyped activities whenever they want? Absolutely. And they should be able to do so whilst still being their natal sex.

IMO we've gone absolutely arse-backwards into a belief that if one does not conform to gendered stereotypes (of appearance, personality, activity and presentation) then that means they can't be that thing and must be "other". And that if they want to fully self-realise they need to literally physically alter themselves, and be "grouped" with whichever sex happens to match their stereotyped personality traits most closely. It's just nonsense. Gender presentation should be whatever people want it to be without judgement, things that need to be segregated by sex should continue to be segregated by sex.

Like I said I think society understood that better at one point or was getting there. A man can hate football and "other manly stuff" and like "frilly girly stuff" and still be a man ffs. I actually find a lot of the current gender zeitgeist really troublingly judgemental, oddly enough. "Males if you don't like BLOKE STUFF you are actually a girl! Get it sorted out silly!" - "Females, if you like BUTCH MAN STUFF you are actually a boy why do you have boobs and where is your beard??"

I think the difference between being trans. and being autonomously gender-binary (whatever the heck that actually is) is that being transgender and going through with surgery is a choice, not a default birth-position. And ultimately the transitioning is based on the two actual sex categories that truly exist (male and female). The very definition of being non-binary is that it’s outside the box of male and female altogether.

[Redway]

A 3-year-old can so badly want to be an 85-year-old wrinkly (somehow) and even identify as one but a toddler will always be a toddler.

[Alf]

When i was growing up, these things didn't even exist. We were too busy having fun.

I think you're all totally brainwashed and bonkers.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Alf

When i was growing up, these things didn't even exist. We were too busy having fun.

I think you're all totally brainwashed and bonkers.

What things didn’t exist and who’s bonkers?

[Redway]

Maybe it was hasty of me to assume you’d actually read the whole thread, Alf. Most people here are firmly anti non-binary.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Redway

What things didn’t exist and who’s bonkers?

Binary, that was just some word for posh people for when two things were binded together.

Most people besides me.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Redway

Maybe it was hasty of me to assume you’d actually read the whole thread, Alf. Most people here are firmly anti non-binary.

Your title to the thread asked a question. I answered that question.

If you want me to read all the drivel, then don't ask the question in the title. Ask it in the drivel.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Alf

Your title to the thread asked a question. I answered that question.

If you want me to read all the drivel, then don't ask the question in the title. Ask it in the drivel.

There’s little point taking your cue from the title alone to call everyone bonkers and brainwashed because most people here aren’t arguing for the non-binary status at all. You’re free to comment however, wherever but without deeping the context at least a little bit you’re not going to add much to the discussion. You should’ve stopped at “we were too busy having fun.” “You’re all bonkers” makes no sense when hardly anyone here actually disagrees with you. Oliver_W (who even thinks trans. peeps are mentally ill) and LeatherTrumpet are the last people in the world to be non-binary allies and you know it.

[Mystic Mock]

Being honest I don't fully understand Non-Binary, especially the ones that go with the pronouns he/them or she/them as you're telling me that you think you're binary and non-binary, that makes no sense to me.

However I don't hate Non-Binary people as they're not harming anyone with this stuff, but it's just something I need to try to understand better I think.

After all when I was growing up our generation was probably the last generation that didn't know what a gender Non-Binary person was, so it's probably a generational thing for a lot of us.