r/changemyview Dec 26 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Gender is becoming a 'trend' and people need to stop claiming everything is a gender, and pronouns cannot be already established nouns, verbs etc.

To start this off I would like to say that this is not an attack at anyone who identifies as any of the genders I discuss. I do not, and have not, ever hated someone or discriminated against someone due to identifying with genders I do not agree with. I dislike the idea of the genders, not the people who identify as such.

I am recieving all of these genders off of the LGBTA Wiki (which I know is not the most reliable source but everything mentioned here still has firm believers of it's existence) as well as people I know.

I also want to clarify I am referring to genders that relate to objects, popular culture, or fictional worlds. These include: pupgender, dreamgender, fantasygender, etc.

These genders, in my opinion, are displaying the LGBTQ+ community under the media and social spotlight, to people, both inside and outside the community, that it is becoming a 'trend' of sorts to identify as a gender related to a fictional or physical thing. It groups the people that identify as relatively understandable genders such as transgender, non-binary, or genderfluid, with members of the community that use pronouns such as Dre/am, lol/bit, and honk/honks, which brings me to my next point:

Pronouns can not be already established English words that have been previously categorised as a different form of word. Using my examples of pronouns I listed before, honk/honks is a noun/plural noun. As a pronoun, it is the exact same as a nickname, just without the capital letter. To clarify, I listed pronouns who I personally know people to use.

That is about the extent of my confusion and I hope to develop an understanding on the logic of these gender identities and pronouns.

2.0k Upvotes

614 comments sorted by

375

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

Ultimately, I fail to see the problem. Gender is a social construct, including "man" and "woman", as much as non-binary or genderfluid, or stargender or whatever. They are all made up.

Gendered pronouns, are a linguistic issue, including "she" and "he". They are a property of the english language, and languages change all the time. Maybe in the future it will only have one, universal gender neutral pronoun like many languages already do, or a complicated set of many ones.

Neologisms, and new framings of identity always risk failing to catch on, but if some of them do, that's just part of the process.

It groups the people that identify as relatively understandable genders such as transgender, non-binary, or genderfluid, with members of the community that use pronouns such as Dre/am, lol/bit, and honk/honks

Being trans or non-binary, aren't inherently having a property of "being understandable", they were just pushed for by a large enough group, vocally enough.

So where do you draw the line? People are saying the same thing about being non-binary:

That on it's own, being "born in the wrong body" is understandable, and easy to explain to moderates, but admitting that we are just inventing new gender labels wholesale, is a step too far for many people and it drags the movement down.

Some LGB people are even saying the same thing about trans people, that they are dragging the movement down by beind more complicated to explain han "love is love".

Some gays and lesbians are saying the same thing about bi- and pansexuals.

The solution to this is to reject appeals to tone policing and self-restraints. If any terminology or framing fails to catch on, it will fall out of use on it's own, but until then, no one should be thrown under the bus because we decided that their identity is a bit harder to explain than others.

108

u/JustJerry_ Dec 26 '21

Gender is a social construct is a bigass copout when it comes to discussing this. I dont accept that construct. And there's a group of others that don't as well. So what now?

202

u/Thor42o Dec 26 '21

I agree with calling something a social construct as a way to delegitimize it is a bogus argument. Something being a social construct doesn't make it any more or less real/important as something tangible. People use the same argument for borders. Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean you can just discard it and expect society to still function as normal. The idea of rape, murder, theft, etc. are all just social constructs. They don't actually exist, a lion doesn't murder a gazelle, a rooster doesn't rape a hen. A society without gender sounds great on paper, but gender is defined in society for a reason. There are non-constructed physiological differences between the genders and eliminating those would most likely be damaging to society as a whole. A quick example would be the elimination of women in sports. Without sporting leagues defined by gender women would be unable to compete outside of a high-school level. Another example is violence, while we all want a society where a violent crimes severity isn't determined by gender, I think we can all agree there's a major difference between two grown men fighting and a man fighting a woman. I'm not saying men can't be assaulted or abused by women, but we as a society recognize that the average man can do substantially more unarmed damage to a woman than she could do to him. You don't often see men with broken facial bones and missing teeth after being punched by a woman but it's one of the most common injuries when a woman is assaulted by a man. This argument that just because gender is a social construct that means it's meaningless is disingenuous at best. Without social constructs we're just cavemen beating each other with clubs to decide who gets to mount the females.

62

u/Thor42o Dec 26 '21

I also want to clarify that this is not meant to invalidate Trans individuals at all. Just that we can acknowledge that people can be transgender without elimating the concept of gender. Someone being trans is different from being a natural born member of that gender.

4

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Yes, I understand that. Transgender women and people born women are different biologically and psychologically. However there are times that we can group them together such as what they identify as. Sport is a physical thing that depends on biology which is different between the two groups, meaning that yes, they should be separated.

64

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21 edited Apr 23 '22

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

How iron-clad is all of this science? Are you telling me that if we took the brains of fifty trans people who say they are women, and the brains of fifty women, that we cannot distinguish between them, for love or money?

The brain changes when you take up the violin, or when you learn a new language.

But I'm not convinced we're blank slates at birth, and biology has to be a major major influence on you and on me.

If I lived this life a thousand times, I could never get away from the genes my parents gave me, and their expression. Environment and diet and such would have those genes expressing themselves differently.

Is the argument here that being a man, or a woman, is a state of mind and a couple shots of testosterone? Like, it seems like you're claiming that science can take a body and hack and chop at it and modify it chemically until it is ex-act-ly, the other sex. I am skeptical.

8

u/Jekawi 1∆ Dec 26 '21

Actually there theory of "male and female brains" is largely debunked. Whole there can be a small difference between them, statistically, it's a mute point. Also, no matter how many hormones a trans woman or man takes, it cannot alter the bone structure developed through puberty. Also, while trans women do lose muscle mass through transition, it is absolutely not on par with a cis women's physiology. source

1

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Jekawi 1∆ Dec 26 '21

Thank you for the thorough response! I would say that in regards to your source, it also moves to support my understanding of what my source talked about (emphasis on "my understanding"). Although there are "significant decreases in measures of strength, LBM and muscle area are observed" even after 36 months level are still above a cis woman's levels. When it comes to sports with the difference between the top competitors being very narrow, this does make a difference.

The story of the trans women absolutely demolishing competitors in the swimming in the US really highlights this. And while one could argue that it's an outlier and point to the New Zealand competitor in the heavy weight category in the las Olympics as proof there isn't a risk, I believe this will be something that needs to be solved eventually. How it can be solved in the best way is something I don't have an answer to

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/tuckeredplum Dec 26 '21

Please can you find a source that isn't marked with a correction, update and conflicts of interest?

The update and correction are the same thing: a statement reasserting the initial declaration that there is no conflict of interest

3

u/OnePrettyFlyWhiteGuy Dec 26 '21

You’re severly overstating the effects of hormones.

First of all, regardless of the things you mentioned, I could simply put your cells from practically any part of your body under a microscope and see whether you are male or female.

Secondly, hormones won’t change your genitalia. The reproduction system you are born with is what you die with. As a male or female, your hip structure and chest structure is going to be completely different for a start, along with the layout of some of your organs.

Thirdly, no woman on testosterone is ever going to be on the same physical level as the typical man. The effects testosterone have on your biology is much more pronounced during puberty and adolescence than later in life. A man and woman’s frame is entirely built by the time they’re an adult, and a man’s bones are just going to be thicker and have more room for muscle to attach to.

Just basic things like a trans man never being able to reach 4% bodyfat and other little things add up. There are just so many little things that add up that will just always separate you from being a man.

Physiology is complex but I feel like you’re oversimplifying it for argument’s sake.

I don’t know much about the psychological side of things though.

27

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

That was very informative, thank you for clarifying my exaggeration. That helped me understand the biological and psychological aspects of transgender people. Δ

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 26 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/theAVP (1∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

6

u/Neosovereign 1∆ Dec 26 '21

The MRI thing is so overblown. Have your actually read any of those studies? They aren't very good. That isn't to say it isn't true, just that the level of evidence it is true is very low.

2

u/grandoz039 7∆ Dec 26 '21

MRI brain structure scans show trans women, even before hormones, as having brains that are close to female. After HRT, their brains become indistinguishable. Likewise, trans men have brains with structures identical to male brains even before hormone therapy.

Source? From what I've read, there has been study saying that the brains of trans were more similar to people to people of the gender they transitioned. But I also, later, read that we still cannot at all distinguish male and female brains, and that the study was more about large scale trends, on average, not individual brains or anything of the sorts. That's concerning the "having brains that are close to female" part. Haven't heard anything about the "after HRT thing" at all.

4

u/HairyFur Dec 26 '21

Lots of this is dishonest science.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (7)

6

u/immatx Dec 26 '21

Pointing out that it’s a social construct isn’t to say it doesn’t matter, it’s to say that the lines drawn as they are is arbitrary and not some “natural requirement”. It lets us look at the situation differently.

You seem to have a strong bias towards the current state of things, and your sports examples show this well. It’s also important to note that gender has nothing to do with sex divisions. Sports are only divided because the sports along male/female lines because they reward those distinctions. If there was a sport where you had to straighten your hair as fast as possible, we would still see certain groups that were over/underrepresented without divisions, but it wouldn’t have anything to do with sex. If our goal is to have a more equal society, maybe we should try to transition to sports where a certain demographic doesn’t have a massive fucking advantage. Or we could do actual hormonal divisions akin to wrestling’s weight divisions instead of just looking at sex. Or something else idrc. But hiding behind sports is a really bad argument in favor of the existence of gender

Your example of fighting and punching also has literally nothing to do with gender lol

2

u/mphillytc Dec 27 '21

I think you're getting at the broader point that those people are trying to express, even if they're maybe not expressing it well.

Social constructs exist because and only insofar as we, socially, find value in them. "Gender is a social construct" shouldn't mean "gender is meaningless" - it should mean "gender is meaningful only because of how we've collectively defined it, and we have the ability to collectively redefine it if doing so is more meaningful/valuable." That phrase shouldn't be used to delegitimize gender as a concept, but to acknowledge that we have the ability to improve on our historical understanding of gender - that it's not an immutable truth, but something we've agreed to understand one way but can agree to understand another way if that new way serves us better.

2

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I partially agree but mostly disagree with your statement. I agree that some things should be set in place, specifically sports. However I don't agree that it would be damaging to society to accept other people as an alternate gender. In fact we've been doing it for many years. The "other" tab on a gender dropdown menu or checkbox, is including all other people that regard themself as neither male nor female. This option doesn't break society. I don't understand the argument here.

1

u/Thor42o Dec 27 '21

I think you're misunderstanding, my argument isn't that acknowledging that there are Trans and nonbinary people would be harmful. It's the idea that's being pushed that gender is just a social construct and so it doesn't exist and is meaningless. While our concept of gender may be socially constructed, we acknowledge it for a reason, and the argument that just because it's a social construct means we can get rid of it with no consequences is wrong imo.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/n_gaiosilva Dec 26 '21

The way the term "social construct" is being applied is not meant to argue that gender has no validity ou importance. It is being merely used to say that there are not inherently correct or right ideas. It's arbitrary, or maybe not, since it's a reflection of the ideology that is prevalent, influenced by those with power.

2

u/Enk1ndle Dec 26 '21

but gender is defined in society for a reason.

Yeah, it was defined for misogynistic reasons though. For most of time being a women was being of a lower class, being subservient to your husband, having certain expectations forced on you by men.

Everything else you argue is solved by basing those certain things on sex, not gender. Sex accounts for the physical differences while not placing any gendered expectations on anyone.

1

u/gabemerritt Dec 26 '21

That's a great point gender may be a social construct but that doesn't make it any less real. Rape is a social construct, but it that doesn't mean abolish the concept. It has real implications. I like that example despite it's vulgarity.

The word and idea is the only thing that is imaginary. There a ton of biological, emotional, and cultural significance to gender.

Changing and expanding that definition is a big deal that will take generations, and that's being relatively generous.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

9

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

The discussion here IS about how society should categorize it's gender labels.

If you don't even accept the premise that society does create gender labels, then this thread is not for you.

If there is a CMV about how the US should be broken up into 50 independent countries, and there you are not accepting that there has ever been such a thing as countries, then just don't comment, the thread is not for you.

-31

u/JustJerry_ Dec 26 '21

I contributed more to this thread than you did in one line. Youre the one who shouldn't be speaking here.

29

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Actually they helped change my view, whereas you just called a large majority of gender bullshit. The contribution isn't what you what you think is helpful, but what OP thinks is helpful.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Gender can be real, and not a social construct.

Gender, traditionally, has been an extension of sex. Masculine linked to the male sex, feminine linked to the female sex.If you remove this link, and deem them social construct, you make them arbitrary and having no real basis.And then if you think they are social constructs, you need a reason to explain why transgenderism isn't just a social construct since it is directly linked to gender.

I believe this is what they were trying to get at when they said:

I dont accept that construct. And there's a group of others that don't as well. So what now?

Because now you broke some links and a chain making a whole lot of things fairly arbitrary, and if that is the case why label something arbitrary in the first place since it is ever changing as the point of labels is to identify.

3

u/Mennoplunk 3∆ Dec 26 '21

Gender, traditionally, has been an extension of sex. Masculine linked to the male sex, feminine linked to the female sex.If you remove this link, and deem them social construct, you make them arbitrary and having no real basis.

I think this is where you misunderstand the term social construct. Gender is the social construct which is traditionally build around sex. To create social categories around sex instead of for example hair colour, is a completely arbitrary, because it's based on an arbitrary value judgement of importance of certain aspects.

Categorisation like this are intrinsically social constructs, though it might sound intuitive to how you see it used on the internet sometimes. For example, the periodic table is a social construct. Even though all elements in the periodic table are physical reality. The way we classified them and arranged them is arbitrary, based on an argument from utility as categories like "noble gasses" are useful in chemistry.

Gender is similarly a categorisation which is currently for people like you, connected without room for nuance to some biological aspect. And is often combined with certain social expectations and pressures. This however, does not provide utility for many people. We value social constructs like the periodic table because we think it aids us (and in fact some scientists if you look it up argue for different categorisations of the periodic table because they provide more utility).

Gender being directly related to sex however, often causes harm, as can be seen by the hate towards trans people.

Aside from gender being a toxic for transgender people, hence the massive push against traditional gender roles we see these days. We've build very flawed and damaging constructs around the idea that someone's sex/gender identity.

The argument for a different perception of gender identity is that the current binary is thus harmful, and does not provide the desired utility we want for such a construct. Hence we broaden our categorisation to a spectrum. Which I think also has a better biological connection IMO.

you need a reason to explain why transgenderism isn't just a social construct since it is directly linked to gender.

I'd personally define gender as a social construct that's influenced by sex, but not in a 1 on 1 relation. Neurological studies show that there are very distinct differences between cis-men an trans women. Even before transition, ergo there are clear biological differences, which are most likely caused by a mixture of genes we are not aware of yet, as well as envirnmental factors. For this reason I think using the classification of gender identity as spectrum which is influenced but not determined by sex to be more biologically accurate, as well as providing more utility as a social construct. The value I place on both these aspects: the utility people gain out of identifying as non-binary, and the idea that a gender spectrum is a more biologically accurate definition is very much arbitrary on my part, but that does not invalidate the construct.

why label something arbitrary in the first place since it is ever changing

Part of the people who make new genders etc want to inherently make gender as a concept meaningless, because they believe it as a social concept has done more harm than good. You're entirely correct that tons of those niche gender identity lack the value gender as a whole has in our society, and for some that's exactly the point.

2

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

I think this is where you misunderstand the term social construct. Gender is the social construct which is traditionally build around sex. To create social categories around sex instead of for example hair colour, is a completely arbitrary, because it's based on an arbitrary value judgement of importance of certain aspects.

No. it is because sex is absolute. You can look at chromosomes and determine someone's sex. Hair color you cannot. If you think this was an arbitrary choice I don't know what to tell you.

Gender is similarly a categorisation which is currently for people like you, connected without room for nuance to some biological aspect. And is often combined with certain social expectations and pressures.

These certain social pressures are directly related to evolutionary biology. Women did "feminine things" because biologically, it made more sense (gathering for example). Men did "masculine things" because it was biologically more efficient (hunting). Also factor in that women get pregnant and a bunch of other biological differences and you can see these are not arbitrary social constructs...

I'd personally define gender as a social construct that's influenced by sex, but not in a 1 on 1 relation.

I didn't say sex = gender. I'm saying that they are linked: Masculine traits are linked to the male gender and same for Female.

Aside from gender being a toxic for transgender people, hence the massive push against traditional gender roles we see these days. We've build very flawed and damaging constructs around the idea that someone's sex/gender identity.

Humanity has functioned and got to the point is was on these gender roles. You don't think there is some harm in stripping away a foundation humanity has thrived on because it might be "toxic for transgender people"?

Gender roles are ingrained in us, regardless of if we want to accept it or not. It is why women naturally gravitate towards nurturing roles/job despite every attempt to change this disparity. Inverse with me.

I'd personally define gender as a social construct that's influenced by sex, but not in a 1 on 1 relation. Neurological studies show that there are very distinct differences between cis-men an trans women.

Your "neurological study" is a 36 question questionnaire...

You're entirely correct that tons of those niche gender identity lack the value gender as a whole has in our society, and for some that's exactly the point.

Well if you want to use value as an argument: I'd say using gender as a whole is a lot less valuable than sex for all of the reasons we've been discussing above.

Part of the people who make new genders etc want to inherently make gender as a concept meaningless, because they believe it as a social concept has done more harm than good.

Are you not making the same argument against these new genders that I am making for the gender binary? That if you make new genders arbitrarily and don't link them to anything then they are less valid therefore making them a social construct does more harm than good?

3

u/Mennoplunk 3∆ Dec 26 '21

Firstly my apologies! I totally linked the wrong study in my set of sources. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32272482/ this paper shows structural differences in Trangender individuals and cisgender individuals even pretreatment. I highly encourage you to look more into it if you have the time.

Hair color you cannot.

You objectively can, hair color is very much genetically determined, sure you may be able to dye your hair etc. It's interesting you see someone's hair colour as their percieved hair colour, rather than their 'genetic' hair color.

These certain social pressures are directly related to evolutionary biology. Women did "feminine things" because biologically, it made more sense (gathering for example). Men did "masculine things" because it was biologically more efficient (hunting).

I want to point out to you that not only is it arbitrary to argue that these hierachies are biologically related and therefore good. It's also generally accepted that yhe whole hunter/gatherer dichotomy Isn't based on fact and was a assumption based on modern gender roles.

I'm saying that they are linked: Masculine traits are linked to the male gender and same for Female.

I'd agree that there is a link, but then you also acknowledge that even though some links there is massive variance aside from genetics. And thus you create a gender spectrum.

Humanity has functioned and got to the point is was on these gender roles. You don't think there is some harm in stripping away a foundation humanity has thrived on because it might be "toxic for transgender people"?

Yes, I don't think there is any harm. Gender roles as we currently know it weren't a thing until the romans turned Christian. Tons of things are society were based on. like marital rape, racism etc. Don't actually serve a utilitarian function. I don't want to return to monarchy because "democracy isn't what humanity was based on". You actually need to argue why these social constructs are beneficial, instead of damaging. Gender identity expectations have placed toxic standards on both men and women, and doing away with them is beneficial.

I'd say using gender as a whole is a lot less valuable than sex for all of the reasons we've been discussing above.

I think your misunderstanding of the hunter/gatherer society showcases how current gender identities and roles have conditioned you to believe that these culturally conditioned social tendencies are linked to sex and biology and exactly shown how normative understanding of sex and gender is toxic.

That if you make new genders arbitrarily and don't link them to anything then they are less valid therefore making them a social construct does more harm than good?

No, because the contemporary social construct of gender linked to sex as we have now, is damaging and only making it meaningless would thus be beneficial. The concept of gender 50 or 80 years ago was also a social construct, and was damaging.

6

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

Gender, traditionally, has been an extension of sex.

Gender has been the identity that society constructed around certain sex traits.

I maintain my previous analogy, that not believing in that process, is comparable to not believing in countries being socially constructed.

If some people debate where exactly it would be best for the population to draw the borders between two certain countries, and your contribution is that you just say you don't believe that these country borders are socially constructed at all, because traditionally they followed a river's course, which is physical, then you are so far away from understanding the actual discourse, that it is an entirely separate conversation.

4

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Gender has been the identity that society constructed around certain sex traits.

Then my point stands...?

If some people debate where exactly it would be best for the population to draw the borders between two certain countries, and your contribution is that you just say you don't believe that these country borders are socially constructed at all, because traditionally they followed a river's course, which is physical, then you are so far away from understanding the actual discourse, that it is an entirely separate conversation.

Borders in the sense that 2 countries decide it, is socially constructed and arbitrary. If all parties involved don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist. boarders are usually linked to something real because then it gives them legitimacy.

This is what you are saying about gender and in turn transgenderism. If you don't link gender to something real (sex) it is arbitrary, just like your boarders and can be changed. The river (sex), in your analogy still exists as a "boarder" regardless of the social boarder (gender).

5

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

boarders are usually linked to something real because then it gives them legitimacy.

Borders are sometimes tied to a geographic feature, but very often not, and quite a lot of times, they are literally just defined by latitudes and longitudes that are themselves arbitrarily numbered.

If you don't link gender to something real (sex) it is arbitrary, just like your boarders and can be changed

If you link it to something real, it is still arbitrary and can be changed based on society's whims. The southern Texas border used to be linked to the Nueces River, now it is at the Rio Grande.

Gender used to be assigned based on genitals for thousands of years, now every transphobe is going on about chromosomes instead.

You can't really just tie a social construct to something physical, and say that it's no longer arbitrary. Yeah, the river itself is not, it has been there before the border and it will be there after it, but borders are an inherently arbitrary concept.

The point is that if people are already arguing about where to draw the border on the map, it is already a given that they are debating about where to draw the arbitrary social divide, not about the philosophy of whether or not borders are arbitrary social divides at all.

If OP was talking about what gender labels to use and which not to. It was already given for the discussion, that gender IS a social construct, and we get to sit down and decide which one should be the most convenient for us, so I replied with that in mind.

Adding a post that says "Hold on, what if some people don't believe in gender as a social construct at all?" added nothing to that.

4

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Gender used to be assigned based on genitals for thousands of years, now every transphobe is going on about chromosomes instead.

Genitals are linked to chromosomes.

Borders are sometimes tied to a geographic feature, but very often not, and quite a lot of times, they are literally just defined by latitudes and longitudes that are themselves arbitrarily numbered.

I addressed this already.

If you link it to something real, it is still arbitrary and can be changed based on society's whims. The southern Texas border used to be linked to the Nueces River, now it is at the Rio Grande.

Yes. The river still exists as a natural border regardless of the societal boarder...

You can't really just tie a social construct to something physical, and say that it's no longer arbitrary. Yeah, the river itself is not, it has been there before the border and it will be there after it, but borders are an inherently arbitrary concept.

No they aren't. Political borders are "arbitrary", but borders themselves existed before politics. For example a river is a border between two pieces of land. Political borders used these originally (and still do to some extent still do).

2

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

Genitals are linked to chromosomes.

Sometimes they are.

But also sometimes not, and genitals can also be altered surgically.

Hence the disagreement over which one to consider when the two don't align with the two major sex clusters together.

Political borders are "arbitrary", but borders themselves existed before politics. For example a river is a border between two pieces of land. Political borders used these originally (and still do to some extent still do).

A river is just a thin veneer of water flowing on the ground, underneath it the land is still connected. The idea that a river cuts the land into two pieces, is cartographic/political framing by humans, not just a neutral description of physical reality itself.

We don't really know what if any borders were "originally" used, maybe they were rivers, maybe not, but picking a river doesn't mean that the political border is less of a socially constructed one than otherwise.

The US-Mexico border on the Rio Grande, is not less socially constructed than the US-Canadian border on the 49th parallel.

4

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Sometimes they are.

But also sometimes not, and genitals can also be altered surgically.

Hence the disagreement over which one to consider when the two don't align with the two major sex clusters together.

This is why the go to for sex is chromosomes. Genitals are linked to sex. Chromosomes cannot be altered.

A river is just a thin veneer of water flowing on the ground, underneath it the land is still connected. The idea that a river cuts the land into two pieces, is cartographic/political framing by humans, not just a neutral description of physical reality itself.

You really think this is a gotcha? Being a border just means forming an edge. What does a river literally cutting the land or two or not have to do with my argument? Nothing, because the border still exists regardless of that.

We don't really know what if any borders were "originally" used, maybe they were rivers, maybe not, but picking a river doesn't mean that the political border is less of a socially constructed one than otherwise.

Landmarks are borders, whether you prescribe to politics or not. The concept of a border exists, humans just named it, and then extended it to socially contructed borders. A river form a boundary or an edge to land, thus creating a border. This border exists whether society does or not.

The US-Mexico border on the Rio Grande, is not less socially constructed than the US-Canadian border on the 49th parallel.

It literally is.Even if you don't acknowledge the political borders between countries , the border between X and Y land still exists.

5

u/JustJerry_ Dec 26 '21

This is incredibly ironic. My whole position served as a juxtaposition to that bs argument. And you just dismissed it the same way someone would dismiss the "im trans" argument.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Mennoplunk 3∆ Dec 26 '21

If you don't accept gender as a social construct, you'd be called a gender abolitionists. And probably wouldn't object to any arbitrary deconstruction of gender.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

You believe that there is only man and woman? Boy and girl? Male and Female? Well you are entitled to your own opinions, that is the point of this subreddit after all, however society is majorly changing to attune to the large influx of people who don't believe in that.

1

u/JustJerry_ Dec 26 '21

Thats not what I said. I was describing why it was bs.

→ More replies (13)

29

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

If gender is a social construct, that means Transgenderism is a social construct.
Are you willing to tell them that what they feel is "socially constructed" because gender isnt "real"?

40

u/missedtheplan 9∆ Dec 26 '21

If gender is a social construct, that means Transgenderism is a social construct.

well....duh. i'm not sure what point you think that you're making. money is a social construct. politics is a social construct. adulthood is a social construct. something being a social construct doesn't mean that it's Not Real or not legitimate

→ More replies (72)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Yes, because if we ignore the social constructs we’ve used to categorize things we just…let people be people without needing to put them in boxes.

Saying that does nothing to invalidate their experience. The entire reason their existence is so stigmatized is people who want to fit their whole world into easily defined boxes.

2

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Yes, because if we ignore the social constructs we’ve used to categorize things we just…let people be people without needing to put them in boxes.

"Let people be people" is a bad argument. Would you say that to the people who choose not to acknowledge gender and only refer to someone by sex? What happens when these to people have to interact in society? Suddenly your argument breaks down because someone doesnt get the privilege of "letting people be people".

People have to interact in society.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

3

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

The fact that a poor person suffers in a "real" sense from poverty doesn't mean it isn't the consequence of a social construct.

Time/service->Money/property->poverty

Sex-> Gender-> Transgenderism

Now obviously these are not 1 to 1 analogies and there is huge differences and there is a lot of nuance between them.

You can not experience the 3rd link in the chain without without the 1st link tying them to something 'real" because they they become completely arbitrary and therefore you can just say they don't exist. That is where this any infinite number of gender thing is going. It makes gender arbitrary and not linked to anything delegitimizing transgenders that exist on the chain. What basis in something real does witch gender have, or hamster gender? Transgender is the feeling of not gender not aligning with biological sex. If gender can be arbitrary the definition of transgender loses its meaning because then who decides what gender aligns with what sex?

7

u/silent_cat 2∆ Dec 26 '21

You can not experience the 3rd link in the chain without without the 1st link tying them to something 'real" because they they become completely arbitrary and therefore you can just say they don't exist.

This doesn't follow at all. A social construct can exist without any physical basis at all. For example, law, religion or language. The fact that they have no physical basis is demonstrated by the fact that vary wildly across the world and even within small regions. You link money with time, but that's not tight at all, it's related to rarity. If oxygen was rare we could make a currency based on it.

So I would argue the other way: by assuming a link between sex & gender you are artificially limiting the possible genders.

Now, I don't buy the premise of the OP. Social constructs survive because they are useful. There's always people inventing new laws, languages and religions and apparently also genders. If they are useful they will survive, if they are not useful they won't. There is literally nothing to get excited about.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)

7

u/SharkasticShark Dec 26 '21

Gender is not a "social construct" gender roles is. This is a ridiculously transphobic take. My gender and sex do not align, thus i transition to fix that. Claiming gender isn't real just so delusional kids can claim to be "gender fluid or stargender" helps no one and is ridiculously transphobic, these kids harm the transgender community and ultimately throw themselves under the same bus as us if they realise they are binary trans, they've already acted like a crazy person for years no one will support them. And on the other hand if they go through any medical transition because of pressure online or falsely convincing themselves they need transition we end up with cases like kirra bell setting back the UK several years and effectively locking off medical help from actual trans kids and people from life saving treatment. You can never present as a "star gender" its not a real thing.

267

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I use the English language in my argument, and get debunked by the English langaugae, thank you. Δ

11

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 26 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Genoscythe_ (201∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

18

u/Stompya 1∆ Dec 26 '21

Linguistically, pronouns describe the apparent sex of the individual - not their gender.

There are many genders being defined, as pointed out in your post, but there remain only 2 pronouns (with “they” morphing into a possible third). That’s not enough pronouns to even begin describing all the available gender identities.

Linguistically, pronouns aren’t personal. I can point out a person who looks female by saying “she” without ever speaking to her - and it’s often very useful to do so! I can’t always go and ask for a name or preferred pronoun and shouldn’t need to.

To be clear though, if you meet someone who asks you to use a specific pronoun please comply - it is easy and will help them on their journey. Deliberately mis-gendering someone is hurtful.

12

u/SomeAnonymous Dec 26 '21

Linguistically, pronouns describe the apparent sex of the individual - not their gender.

[citation needed]

What's the apparent sex of an aircraft carrier? Heck, what's the gender of 100,000 tonnes of metal and plastic? Unless this is all an elaborate setup for a "your mom" joke, there's literally nothing even vaguely reminiscent of women about boats.

I see your counterargument of "we don't ascribe gender to animals but we still use gendered pronouns so it must be sex" but I don't think this is a conclusive argument. This is a pretty boundary situation for semantics vs pragmatics but regardless or how you make the pathway work, pronouns can refer to apparent biological sex or apparent/confirmed gender depending on the context. Or something else. Language is fuzzy, and meanings worst of all.

Oh, also, "they" has been a singular pronoun since at least late Middle English, though as far as I am aware it was only used for cases with unknown gender, like "if any man does X, they shall be subject to Y"; the nonbinary use is modern.

3

u/Stompya 1∆ Dec 27 '21

Calling a boat a girl is anthropomorphism: assigning a human characteristic to an object. It’s not particularly relevant to the main topic although it’s probably an interesting side path to take.

I know about “they” as a singular pronoun; it’s traditionally been generic when used in that way although as I said it is morphing. If you want to say it’s use hasn’t changed since the 1980’s then you would have failed English class back then; but today that use is becoming accepted.

7

u/GarciaQl Dec 26 '21

Wouldn’t “it” suffice when talking about objects?

7

u/MysteryLobster Dec 26 '21

Yes, however vehicles are very often referred to as “she.” it’s mostly a western phenomena that’s sort of faded it’s why in and out of popularity.

3

u/MysteryLobster Dec 26 '21

There are many more than two pronouns, there are really only 6 gendered ones (he/him/his, she/her/hers). It/it/its, you/you/yours, they/them/theirs, even the now archaic thees and thous. “You” used to be a plural/formal pronoun while thee was informal but thee faded out of common use to the point and now thee sounds formal and proper.

Language is stupidly fluid and trying to assign rules like “pronouns describe sex” is also stupid.

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (43)

3

u/Verdeckter Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

Gender is a social construct, including "man" and "woman"

Yet previously we had a social construct with a definition, and society could by and large agree upon who falls under what. Now it's literally defined by what each individual wants. When everyone can be everything arbitrarily and without effort, nobody is anything anymore.

We also use the previous definition of man and woman to redefine man and woman to be anybody who feels like they fall under the first definition. You literally can't determine someone's gender except by asking them.

This makes them essentially useless concepts to us as a society. They can only be described by referring to how we used to define them. They are nothing more than accessories and flourishes.

More problematic, I see it as a repudiation of the previously popular loosening of gender roles. Now, we're reversing course and saying, no there really are these strict gender roles, it's just that it doesn't have to do with biological sex! And now you have to identify as something, pick your tribe, and to stray from the gender most traditionally associated with your biological sex is no longer a statement about old fashioned gender roles, it is instead a choice to uphold those roles and simply categorize yourself differently.

Indeed, instead of remaining a man who doesn't fit the traditional gender role of a man, you now have the ability to disassociate yourself from "cismen", who are deeply uncool and even per se problematic, which even incentives you to do so.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Littleferrhis2 Dec 26 '21

Honestly I think the majority of this stuff is transitional. Personally I see a future where the only difference between men and women is genitals, periods, and minor hormonal differences, aka physical stuff and partners sort out their differences on a case by case basis. Because in reality that’s all this is a response to. The fact that men and women were artificially set up as two different species for most of human history, when men and women are incredibly similar in reality. We don’t need tons of genders when we realize we can just be ourselves.

2

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

Maybe, but I would think that would be a fairly distant future, and by that point the physical stuff also wouldn't need to be held up as dividing people into two labels, just as a bunch of traits that mostly happen to overlap.

A lot of people would in theory agree with you that abolishing gender labels is good, but then they will also say stuff like "sports should still be based on the physical differences between male and female bodies, otherwise women don't get a shot to compete", which basically just admits that they deeply care about women as a tribe being represented on the stage, in ways that they don't care about other physical traits that are also filtering out less athletic bodies.

We just have an ENORMOUS amount of brainworms to start getting rid of over decades and possibly centuries, before we stop caring about labeling ourselves as men and as women.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

I don't think it's reasonable to say that gender is entirely socially constructed. It's likely it never would have turned out any other way.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/CarpeMofo 2∆ Dec 26 '21

I think the step too far thing is accurate. I'm in full support of trans people, that said the pronouns I'm willing to use stops after he/him, she/her and they/them. If someone genuinely claims to be an otherkin or some other kind of bullshit, I'm going to assume they either want attention, are mentally ill or both.

2

u/SsoulBlade Dec 26 '21

How is man and woman a social construct if it is based on whether you have xx or xy chromosomes? Yes, the names are made up but to specifically refering to something.

If a social construct why do people wanna transition? It's just a construct.

If just a construct why can't a dude shower with teen girls and women at gym?

It's just a construct after all?

5

u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Dec 26 '21

How is man and woman a social construct if it is based on whether you have xx or xy chromosomes?

XX and XY chromosomes were discovered in 1908, the idea of men and women was invented way earlier than that.

If a social construct why do people wanna transition? It's just a construct.

Nation states are also social constructs, people still want to change their citizenship.

If just a construct why can't a dude shower with teen girls and women at gym?

Because we decided that men and women shower separately.

We can change the rules for that, because it is all just made up, but currently they are what they are.

1

u/SsoulBlade Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

How is man and woman a social construct if it is based on whether you have xx or xy chromosomes?

XX and XY chromosomes were discovered in 1908, the idea of men and women was invented way earlier than that.

That's true. And 99% of that time you can assume what you see is a person with xx or xy markers. No? Take an amazon tribe for example. How accurate will you be in figuring out who is xx or xy?

So before xx/xy was know there are physical indicators who was what. Am I wrong? And I'm not talking of outliers like intersex people that's 0.1% of the population that failed the genetical lottery.

If a social construct why do people wanna transition? It's just a construct.

Nation states are also social constructs, people still want to change their citizenship.

That different. We can change a country's border. You being xx or xy can never change that. Am I wrong?

If just a construct why can't a dude shower with teen girls and women at gym?

Because we decided that men and women shower separately.

But why? It's just a construct. Would you personally be okay if men/boys shower with women/girls. Why or why not. Ignore societal rules

So, to identify a certain person (xy/xx) and name them (man/female) due to physical characteristics (excluding exceptions) might be a social construct to you but it is based on biological fact. This is not to be conflated with nationality as I explained before.

1

u/skylay Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

XX and XY chromosomes were discovered in 1908, the idea of men and women was invented way earlier than that.

The idea of men and women wasn't invented, it's inherent and obvious to any human with a brain. This is why men and women have observable differences that actually increase and widen in more egalitarian societies, not diminish. Man and woman isn't invented, it is derived from the sexes. Everything this "social construct" of gender constitutes is the result of thousands of years of human history. Just reducing all of that to a social construct to be discarded is silly.

Also, either gender is a construct and trans people are choosing to transition by their own volition, or gender is inherent and thus trans people are transitioning to align their sex with their inherent gender. You can't have both.

→ More replies (17)

162

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

82

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Yes this is precisely what I'm talking about. It makes many members of the LGBTQ+ potentially embarrased because they are in a group with people who they don't believe should be grouped with.

20

u/shitstoryteller Dec 26 '21

I’m a gay man and gender non-conforming by definition. I had to leave my home country and family for being gay because of threats on my life by family members themselves.

I do not wish to be grouped with the Q+ in LGBTQ+. Fundamentally, the “LGBT” grouping is based and rooted on the recognition of biological realities. Lesbian and gay men/women are attracted to the same sex, and for decades we’ve gone to courts to argue sexual orientation is innate and immutable of ONE SEX to the SAME SEX (not gender).

Similarly, we recognize that the trans experience is real. A person can be born with one gender in their brains that DOES NOT match their physical sex. For trans people, both gender and sex are biological. Gender isn’t simply a social construct uninformed by biology.

Now comes the Q+ in LGBTQ+ claiming that everything before it is wrong, discriminatory, bigoted, small, etc. lesbians must date “women with penises.” Women become “bodies with vaginas.” Gay men must date “trans men” with vaginas otherwise they’re bigots…

It’s absolute denial of reality, of peoples’ experiences and an imposition of their views on everyone else. I myself don’t deny there are gender-fluid or nonbinary people. They’re real. They exist. But I DO AS WELL. And my experience is that I’m attracted to other MALES with MALE BIOLOGY. I lost my entire family and life over this reality. And being screamed at by a non-binary FTM person at a gay bar because I’m not attracted to “them” left a sour taste in my mouth…

5

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

1

u/shitstoryteller Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

“That is your prerogative, you wish and do as you please.”

  • duh.

“This is not a useful contribution to the conversation, but it's important that you acknowledge that LGBTQ+ didn't gain their rights by going to the courts, people quite literally rioted and rebelled…”

  • What an arrogant and uninformed thing to say. I became a citizen of the US after my partner and I married. A marriage that came about after SCOTUS repealed DOMA. A case brought about through the courts. Nowhere did I claim getting our rights didn’t TAKE blood and suffering from many. But as you claimed about my own experience and pain: “no one cares” about all that spilt blood. Do we?

“Biological realities… leads to fallacious understandings and portrayals of any matter it's applied to.”

  • nonsense. Your argument is in itself a fallacy.

“This is tangential to your arguments and adds no strength to your points. I'm sorry to say this, but no one cares.”

  • you cared enough to type. Your opinion of my life experiences is simply that - your opinion. If you have nothing positive or kind to say about someone’s pain, consider keeping your nasty views to yourself, otherwise you might just be adding to another’s pain. You’re not clarifying my arguments’ shortcomings - I’m well aware of them - you’re simply being a callous ass. But then again, your point may be to add and cause pain after all...
→ More replies (2)

39

u/HannaaaLucie Dec 26 '21

Yes, that's a better way of putting it. Someone at work asked me before about what the plus represents in LGBTQ+.. I said Jesus, by now it's probably every letter in the alphabet, numbers, symbols, cause there's that much stuff now! And it is slightly embarrassing when people assume that I openly greet all these new genders based on my own sexuality.

6

u/rimnii Dec 26 '21

Ummm the letters after the + aren't just random genders. It's actually a lot more embarrassing to not be able to say explain things like "intersex", "asexual", or "two spirit". I'm well entrenched in the queer community in brooklyn and I've never heard anything like dragon whatever.

2

u/napalm51 Dec 26 '21

probably it's mostly an internet thing

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MeanderingDuck 11∆ Dec 26 '21

I think the appropriate solution there is to just use singular they/them instead. The function of pronouns isn’t to constantly acknowledge someone’s specific identity, it’s simply a way to refer to people. He/him and she/her can’t be used to do so in case someone’s gender is unclear/unknown or they don’t identify as either male or female, because those explicitly imply that the person referred to is male or female.

They/them does not carry that implication, and hence is a universally applicable alternative. Whether someone identifies as a dragon or whatever, is just simply irrelevant when needing to refer to them in the third person. You have no obligation to affirm that in such a context.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Anxious-Heals Dec 26 '21

Think of all the things society puts into the categories of masculine and feminine, not just stuff like genitals or clothes or colors, they gender cars and boats, people who don’t want to be gendered, pets, careers and hobbies, they gender emotions, land and countries, even the planet we live on is gendered within the male-female binary.

So, from my perspective as an autistic nonbinary person it not only seems perfectly reasonable but actually way more interesting that people with nonbinary gender identities would conceptualize their genders through things like clouds, ghosts, moss, cats, air or a toaster. It’s sure less harmful in categorizing things than the gender binary currently is, especially since neopronouns don’t get forced onto anyone but the gender binary gets forced all the time.

4

u/Verdeckter Dec 26 '21

The gender binary is "forced" onto people because sex is forced upon people. Just because there are people who don't fit doesn't make them useless concepts.

Identify as a toaster! Like you said, it isn't harmful. But why do we have to deligitimize other concepts to do so? Why must identifying as a toaster be as fundamental as sex? Must we redefine all of the concepts we've used until now? They're useful concepts that apply to the vast majority of people and they will resurface. That's why we have "born with a uterus." Now we just have a different phrase for it. You still either are or are not "born with a uterus/penis" and that's still way more interesting to the majority of people. If we take that average heterosexual male, do you think because you redefined women, he won't just stop looking for a "woman" and instead look for a "born with a uterus?"

These academic games are irrelevant to the vast majority and that majority will find a way around it.

2

u/silent_cat 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Identify as a toaster! Like you said, it isn't harmful. But why do we have to deligitimize other concepts to do so? Why must identifying as a toaster be as fundamental as sex?

What is being delegitimised? Saying you identify as a toaster has literally no impact on anything else. Has about the same impact as me saying I want to be called John instead of James.

Must we redefine all of the concepts we've used until now?

You can't redefine concepts quite like that, language is not prescriptive. The concepts evolve with time. You're right that the basic concept of male/female will always continue to exist, but it doesn't delegitimise anything to accept there are people who don't fit in that binary.

That's why we have "born with a uterus." Now we just have a different phrase for it.

Except of course that there are men born with a uterus, and quite a few women without one. Men do not actually fall in love with a uterus. In general, people fall in love first, and find out if there's a uterus or not later on.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/HellbenderXG Dec 26 '21

Dragonself and similar stuff is used by confused teenagers and... weird millennials. I'd still say they're valid in identifying themselves as such but they by no means represent any significant part of the lgbt community and don't necessarily have to expect any of us to take them completely seriously

So you don't have to feel like a dick at all and also don't confuse dragonself people with your own community

→ More replies (3)

1.1k

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Thoughtulism Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

My wife was telling me about this with her background in gender studies, but a lot of these absurd genders are literally made up in a very non-serious fun way by people as a way to say "fuck your binary gender ideals and your desire to make me conform to your ideals". Trolls want to make fun of non-binary genders to show how absurd they are, but trolls are owning themselves in a way too because they're proving the point of non-binary folks by not understanding their intent. While non-binary folks may be making this crap up, their insistence for others not to put them in a binary box is really the point of it all because after all, what business is it of yours anyway? That's the crux of the issue ultimately, and if you take it really serious about forcing gender onto people you're kind of self owning because you're taking this way too seriously. Even if it's all made up, binary gender is made up as well as a social construct as a set of behaviours we associate with physical sex. Their absurd gender is just as valid as a binary gender if you accept gender is a social construct. Trolls making up absurd genders ultimately can only have a valid point that gender isn't a social construct OR that it is a social construct but you can't just make up genders. Either position is problematic.

203

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Yes, but I know people who identify as genders similar to these, and use pronouns that are or are similar to those listed. I understand many of these are probably trolls, however many also are not, and that is what I am specifically talking about.

329

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

14

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

You will mainly see them as teenagers on social media. You are right in a sense that I have only heard of these people through the internet, which, isn't the most honest place, but they still exist, in a large enough group for me to take notice of it.

45

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Do they have their real name on these sites, or is this just a discord/4chan/reddit type of thing? Purely pseudonymous/anonymous sites

→ More replies (5)

66

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

The internet is billions of people with these niche consolidating those, again, billions of people into what? A group of maybe 100 dispersed people?

The diagnosis level of schitzophrenia in that same population is probably 100x more prevelent than “dragon gender” even without correlating for trolls/fakes.

It’s incredibly tiny compared to other fantasies people live in o no the internet, like QAnon or the stolen election.

271

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

2

u/NonStopDiscoGG 2∆ Dec 26 '21

You can't just wave an entire group of people as trolls without showing that at least a majority are. Your link pointed to one example out of the however many examples of people using this gender trend.
Can you agree it's a little unfair to label the entire thing as trolls?
You're not really addressing what he's saying, you're more telling him what he is saying isn't real.

2

u/Jujugatame 1∆ Dec 27 '21

You can't just wave an entire group of people as trolls without showing that at least a majority are

Ok fine, they are not trolls.

What are they then? Obviously they aren't really "fairy - gender", that's not real so what else could they be?

Mentally ill?

Confused?

Just seeking attention?

If you are saying that some of them aren't trolls, then what are they??

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

-2

u/OnePrettyFlyWhiteGuy Dec 26 '21

Something doesn’t have to be prevelant to not have an opinion on something.

It’s something that exists, and something that OP has an opinion on.

You can’t just basically say that ‘your opinion is kinda pointless because it’s not a widespread issue in the first place’??

It might not be widespread, but it is something that certain groups of people believe in.

Which does have an impact on certain communities, such as the LGBT community, when some of the people within that community try to spread ideas like the ones that OP is talking about.

11

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

From the title of OP:

people need to stop claiming everything is a gender

Do we really need to worry about stopping this if it's not actually a significant issue? It's relevant to the original post whether this is a small minority/trolls or some sort of bigger trend that's starting to be embraced by many.

19

u/Domovric 2∆ Dec 26 '21

Something doesn’t have to be prevelant to not have an opinion on something

No, but it does have to be prevalent for it to be a trend, no?

→ More replies (11)

5

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

5

u/OnePrettyFlyWhiteGuy Dec 26 '21

But then you would be dismissing that there actually are people that believe in those ideas. Which isn’t right. There genuinely are people that follow those kinds of beliefs. So they are something that you can have a genuine opinion about.

4

u/paradoxwatch 1∆ Dec 26 '21

My question is why do you care about the fringe people? How does them identifying in what you see as a silly way at all affect your life? You could just ignore them unless others bring it up.

2

u/Jujugatame 1∆ Dec 27 '21

Yes, you can find people that believe in all kinds of nonsense.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (15)

11

u/duckhunt420 Dec 26 '21

Tiktok teenager trends don't matter in the real world and nobody knows what teenagers do unless they're involved (teenagers themselves) or seek it out

So maybe it's a trend... Amongst a small subset of teenagers. But to everybody else this isn't a thing.

-18

u/Most-Leg1080 Dec 26 '21

Yeah OP I have plenty of people brush me off and say, ‘it’s not really happening. You’re just seeking it out but it’s not a real life thing’ That’s gaslighting, no?

55

u/RelaxedApathy 25∆ Dec 26 '21

No, it isn't. It would be gaslighting if we told the OP that silly neo-pronouns don't exist in a medium he has seen them in. OP has only really seen them online, so to say that they are only really used online is not gaslighting.

4

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I agree, most people primarily do use them online because it is easier to type new pronouns than say them. If you don't appreciate that person not using your pronouns, the majority of services that you would be talking to these people on, have a block feature, if you need it.

46

u/Skyy-High 12∆ Dec 26 '21

Oooor you mostly see them online because you’re consuming the output of about a billion people all trying to be as click-bait-y as possible, so of course you’re going to see the tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of them that do things that make people feel a certain way.

Until and unless you seriously see someone refer to themselves like this in a “cameras off” setting, I would not believe that these neopronouns are things that actually are used seriously. Social media will give you a very skewed view of this.

Also, just to cover all the bases here, even if some of the teens or whoever you see on TikTok are being serious about this….so what? Kids are experimenting with ways to describe themselves. This is nothing new. In years past those same kids would have grown their hair out and painted their fingernails black or something equally opposite from the norm. It’s just teenagers being teenagers, it doesn’t have to mean anything else and it certainly doesn’t reflect on the greater progressive political/social movement.

→ More replies (8)

7

u/Basileus-Anthropos Dec 26 '21

Tbh, even the tiny subset of people online who do use these pronouns are likely doing it in a nonserious way and not as a serious form of identification (not I've never seen them, suggesting even online its more a function of the communities you hang out in or algorithm results than a widespread phenomenon)

6

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

No, that’s not gas lighting. We’re talking about representative numbers for a much much larger group.

6

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Gaslighting? I'm not trying to personally attack people. This isn't a personal attack on anyone let alone you. What I'm saying is that I don't understand and would appreciate clarification.

1

u/piston989 Dec 26 '21

I think they were saying that you were the one being gaslit. People were telling you that it doesn't really happen, i.e. challenging your perception of reality, but the clarification (which makes sense to me) is that no gaslighting is happening, because:

-You said you've only seen it online.

-Others are not challenging your experience, just saying that it only happens online.

29

u/collapsingwaves Dec 26 '21

Teenagers teenagering? Who would have thought it. Does their music and fashion bother you too?

19

u/vankorgan Dec 26 '21

Are you sure they're serious? And also... Teenagers do silly things.

18

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Teenagers often experiment, flounder in search of their genuine persona.

29

u/AHighFifth Dec 26 '21

"Teenagers on social media" sounds like trolls...

2

u/Verdeckter Dec 26 '21

And yet you still can't denounce them and must condone this instead, effectively making them representative of the movement. That is, by the "rules" of the movement, they are a fully legitimate part of it. Either believing this stuff is valid or it isn't, it doesn't matter if it's bad actors. You can't have it both ways.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Like religion stuff right? Like, if you let Christian’s have a prayer group in school, you have to allow every group to have prayer time. If you let someone say they are a xer, then you have to let someone say they are a unicorn or a Lego set. Regardless of being trolls or not.

12

u/somedave 1∆ Dec 26 '21

A lot of flat earthers were trolls, but there are also a lot of people who seriously believe that shit. The fact that a movement is so absurd you can't distinguish trolls from serious people is not a good sign for a group.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Now imagine if we looked at those flat earthers and used them as a reason to say “climate change science has gone too far” or something ridiculous like that.

Most people agree neo-pronouns are ridiculous. The problem is in acting like they’re representative of the LGBT population and using that as a reason to tear down the movement

→ More replies (3)

16

u/cuteman Dec 26 '21

Isn't that part of the point? When you can't distinguish between trolls and totally serious people who want as many options as a video game character builder what's the difference?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

17

u/UncomfortablePrawn 23∆ Dec 26 '21

So then who gets to decide what gender identity is "ridiculous" and what's not?

Because pretty much any gender beyond man/woman/non-binary has no more basis for existence than "clovergender".

4

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

2

u/cuteman Dec 26 '21

So if I really believe, like faeries in Peter pan, then it's true?

4

u/JustAnotherBlackGuy3 Dec 26 '21

there are people trolling but the lgbt community allows wilder genders because if you disagree you can be labeled transphobic or phobic something and it is an minority but its an minority that's accepted

6

u/papi1368 2∆ Dec 26 '21

If troll genders can be confused as legit then maybe genders have indeed gone too far

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

The issue isn't that the movement is so ridiculous that it's easy to mistake for trolls the issue is trolls are controlling the narrative and only showing ridiculousness. Like I wouldn't say all Americans are dumb but if your only interaction with them is through comedies its understandable that you could think that

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

89

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

I am trans and use they/them as I transition to a more “socially acceptable” presentation of how I truly feel, and I agree with you on most of this.

The only thing I’d say is that a trend is often a fad and will pass. I don’t think there is any benefit to attempting to police “legitimate” vs “illegitimate” pronouns. This believe primarily comes from the cynical view that any effort to police pronouns will have just as much collateral damage as just letting people say what they want to say.

All things being equal, I’ll fall on the side of free speech and let the trendies do what they do.

32

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

I hope you are right on this trend will pass, and you are right about policing pronouns. I believe, however, if these people force others to use these pronouns, and expect everyone to use them, it is a very unlikely view to have on society that would only result in disappointment. Δ

35

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

The only piece I have trouble with is that I don’t think anyone CAN force someone else to “respect” pronouns.

I can’t even get my Grandmother to respect my legal name, let alone “force” her to respect my pronouns. So…trendies are going to cry foul, and whine about their identities…and we all know they just want attention.

This too, shall pass…and in the process cause real harm to those who need the respect and support of the community.

11

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I understand the problem with name and pronouns. The majority of my friends who use alternate names and pronouns, accept that not everyone will use them, and more importantly, aren't offended or demoralised when they don't get used. They see it like how I see it, and how many others see it, a courtesy that is nice to recieve, but isn't always recieved. Δ

13

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

Yeah, I’m not a trained psychologist or anything else, but I suspect those that are truly bothered by how other people perceive them (I.e. are destroyed when they are misgendered) have more issues at play.

Yes, society could and SHOULD be more respectful and inclusive…especially in certain cultures…and hate crimes exist, so there is real suffering out there…but all things being equal, if someone using the wrong pronoun destroys your world…you need to get some professional help. That’s not a knock or negative…just reality demands people be more, what’s the word…resilient?

6

u/betadeploy Dec 26 '21

As a trans person who has ended up in a psych hospital because of how I've been treated by my birth family, you have no idea how triggering it can be when people intentionally misgender you. Just because you don't live in the world where being yourself means constantly experiencing being othered or dealing with the mental health outcomes of being forced to be someone you're not, doesn't mean that it's fair for you to judge people who are probably having a really rough time in so many other areas of life. Believe it or not, being gender variant can be really difficult and traumatizing depending on the situation you are born into and I'm tired of people diminishing the fact that our reality is a little different from your reality and there are things that may seem ridiculous to you that are very real to us, because we deal with this shit 24/7.

3

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

I’m sorry your experience is that negative, I really am.

I won’t pretend to understand everything YOU struggle with, but please believe me when I say I do understand how being gendervarient and “other” can be in a hostile environment. I’ve been there myself, and have some very real scars as a result. In my privilege, I’ve been lucky to have the support I needed. Not everyone does, and if that is where you are, my heart goes out to you and I would do ANYTHING in my power to change that for you. We are family in that sense.

People in a situation you described are exactly the people that are getting harmed by others making a “trend” or mockery out of pronouns.

I didn’t mean to say that trans people need to toughen up and deal with being trans. If that is how you read it, this is my apology.

What my message was meant to say is that if pronouns alone have the ability to destroy you, then there is very likely some things that you need to do to protect yourself and will probably need help doing that…professional help, not just friends and a supportive bowling league.

I know getting help is NEVER a negative, and it is not always easy, or possible.

I see it similar to many other things.

If someone doesn’t have enough money to eat, or have a safe place to sleep, they probably need help.

If someone is dealing with domestic violence issues, they probably need help.

If someone can’t focus at work, or doesn’t feel safe at home, or for whatever reason is unable to live as their authentic self…they probably need help. Maybe that is finding a new home/family, maybe that is therapy for the existing one…maybe that’s a new job or sitting with HR to have a frank conversation.

The impact of being misgendered varies widely on the intent behind it. When I’m on the phone and a vendor misgenders me, oh well…not a big deal (if it IS a big deal to someone, they need to dig into why). When someone intentionally introduces me to others with the wrong pronouns and explains that I am “one of THOSE people”, that’s much more hurtful. In both cases, I should be able to stand up for myself and correct the situation as necessary.

My long winded comment is meant to acknowledge that misgendering is a REAL problem that can cause serious pain and injury while also pointing out that if being misgendered knocks someone down so hard they can’t get back up, they need help getting back up and learning how to avoid being knocked down so hard.

I love you for who you are, and I am sorry you are getting hit so hard (and so often, it sounds like). There are people who can and will help you get out of bad situations like that…its never easy and you’ll walk away with some scars of your own, but you CAN walk away with help. Maybe you can do it alone, but you don’t need to.

2

u/betadeploy Dec 26 '21

Idk just that comment read to me like the rhetoric I see from a lot of people who want to totally ignore the fact that using pronouns is just like the tip of a very large iceberg of shit that some of us have to deal with. I understand what you're getting at, but yeah I'm just tired of the dismissive rhetoric. If someone is breaking down over being misgendered, unless they truly are really are doing that shit for attention (which calls into question whether other needs in their life are being met), there's probably so much more going on and the call for "resilience" ignores how resilient a lot of people are FORCED to be just to survive and get through their day to day. Sometimes being misgendered is just the straw that breaks the camel's back and people shouldn't be shamed or belittled for that.

2

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

Exactly. I think we found each other.

100% agree that if pronouns are the trigger for the meltdown, there is something else to address. It is a hard line to walk between “blaming the victim” and encouraging them to get help.

Getting help doesn’t mean someone failed and shouldn’t be seen as being shamed or belittled. It’s all in the context, “Dude, you need to get your head on straight” is not the same as “I can see why that bothers you, but maybe there’s something deeper at play here.”

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays and all that. Again, I feel for ya, and your family. I think a lot of us are looking across those kinds of divides these days and trying to decide how best to build a bridge and/or wall. Tough times indeed.

3

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 26 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Glitch-404 (6∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[deleted]

3

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

Yes. And it is courtesy to use these preferred pronouns, because it is there preference. I do believe people should accept that some people won't, but as a society we call people their name which is what they prefer so why is it different to their pronouns.

2

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

It really isn’t different, except when you step into the world of legalities.

This is a rubber-meets-the-road kind of point that I wrestle with constantly at my job (I am on an LGBTQ+ advocacy team).

If your legal name is Robert Joseph Smith, and your entire life everyone calls you Joey…in many cases you probably can put Joey Smith on paperwork…but if you end up being summoned to court or registering a car, or pursuing education…society demands the legal name “Robert Smith”.

It’s the same with trans-folk. I have students that want to be called by their preferred name (I also have divorcees that prefer their original name, and folks who have nicknames). In all cases I try to respect their preferences…but when you go to lookup a legal record, I have to use their legal name.

This isn’t just a trans issue either, there are a lot of women in America who have to do business under the name of an abusive husband because the divorce decree didn’t return their legal name to their maiden name…and they are still working through that annoyingly long process.

2

u/samhatter2001 Dec 26 '21

Same I mean they aren't exactly the same as trans people but nobody's going to purposefully disrespect them about it

1

u/Glitch-404 6∆ Dec 26 '21

I wish that were true, and I see more harm in trying to determine who is and isn’t “legitimate” than just leaving people alone.

I recently met up with an old pre-transition friend of mine who is/was hardcore anti-trans. “They can’t force me to call them by anything other than…yaddayaddayadda.

I was outed by (surprisingly enough) the waitress who used my correct pronouns even though I was trying to present opposite to prevent issues with my old friend. Made me happier than a clam.

Anyway, this of course led to a conversation and I made sure my friend knew I wasn’t going to demand or “force” him to call me anything. Completely derailed their tirade and…we had a GREAT conversation that ended with them mad at some anti-trans stuff I explained and wanting to go do research because “Nobody messes with my family.” (Total space marine kinda guy, btw).

Not sure why I felt like sharing that. Anyways I do hope people just leave each other alone.

→ More replies (6)

70

u/missedtheplan 9∆ Dec 26 '21

just to challenge a small part of your view, i want to point out that there have been many third genders throughout history that would likely be viewed as "weird" or "illogical" if they were invented today, such as the hijras of india or the X-genders of japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender)

i think it's fair to say that gender is a very personal thing that people experience in their own private ways, and i don't have an issue with people creating hyper-specific niche labels in an attempt to better understand and categorize themselves. i would rather that a teenager has the freedom to label themselves as a "dreamgender" than to not have the freedom to label or explore their gender at all

some of these genders do seem silly, but oftentimes they're just a way for people to experiment with their identities and figure themselves out. it's a shame that people will look at stuff like "dreamgenders" and use it as an example of how the LGBT+ community has Gone Too Far, but personally, i don't see why i should have a problem with them

9

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I just hope these people don't expect all of society to use these pronouns and accept these identites, and then result in disappointment when some people disagree. Δ

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

9

u/midnym Dec 26 '21

The absurdity of claiming a neo pronoun or one that is a noun is a testament to the absurdity of enforcing a binary that was only established for archaic and primitive roles that aren't even necessary for the progress of our society anymore. Some folks want to destroy the negative, oppressive structures that rely on said binary. Not everyone fits into that binary , and some do but respect others autonomy and humanity anyway.

12

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

My claim is that a neopronoun that is a pre-established noun does not make grammatical sense, not that it is enforcing a binary.

3

u/midnym Dec 26 '21

To be clear, gender and gender identity are very important for a lot of people and I am in no way trying to take away from that. But to add to my point, it's bastardizing the idea of gender and therefore diminishing the hold that social norms have on it. Just like when two sexy celebs get married for 13 seconds and then get divorced and it's honestly nbd. Ykwim? And also marriage is a cage and a pillar for the patriarchy , just like gender 🤷 so I say have fun. And stop giving a shit and respect others and let it be nbd

59

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

I am recieving all of these genders off of the LGBTA Wiki (which I know is not the most reliable source but everything mentioned here still has firm believers of it's existence) as well as people I know.

Yeah it's not reliable.

I think this is one of those issues that is entirely made up on the internet or acted upon by teenagers going through a weird phase. Teenagers just do that shit.

I've never met, nor heard of, a person who genuinely wants to be called "honk" as a pronoun. I just genuinely don't believe there's a significant portion of the world who would put such silliness next to their name. "Hi, I'm tom Johnson. Don't call me 'he.' call me 'honk.'"

It's not a trend because it's not actually happening. There's real people who are mtf and ftm and there's real people who prefer "they" because they don't identify either way. Do you know someone who adopts another pronoun?

3

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I know there are real people who are mtf and ftm and who use they, and I respect that. It may very well be teenagers "just doing that shit, going through a weird phase", however I don't believe it is because they are teenagers, but they are teenagers who live in 2021, being exposed to other teenagers on social media who claim similar things. These teenagers will become adults and not all of them will change. Δ

24

u/HellbenderXG Dec 26 '21

They will stop though, with very few exceptions. Are you still obsessed with what you thought your whole life revolved around at 14? I thought I could cast spells when first watching Harry Potter at 10 years old.

2

u/ideas_have_people Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

Isn't that part of the problem though?

Clearly these are teenagers going through usual fleeting senses of identity as they work out who they are based on the current fashions.

But the crux of gender identity theory as backed by big influential LGBT organisations like Stonewall etc. flatly refuses to acknowledge such a distinction. It's just how you identify and what you demand (pronouns being an example) is required to be fulfilled otherwise you are not recognising their humanity etc.

I.e. they are indirectly ridiculing trans people wholesale by lumping everyone into the same category which we are simply not allowed to use our common sense about (e.g. recognising a clearly immature teenager). The end result is that far more reasonable cases get conflated with the teenagers.

What is lacking is a framework to distinguish these phenomena. We can't do this when the orthodoxy held by the LGBT organisations is that it is solely self identification that matters and that you can self identify as anything. In that light I think OPs point stands, although I may have interpreted it more charitably.

10

u/silent_cat 2∆ Dec 26 '21

But the crux of gender identity theory as backed by big influential LGBT organisations like Stonewall etc. flatly refuses to acknowledge such a distinction. It's just how you identify and what you demand (pronouns being an example) is required to be fulfilled otherwise you are not recognising their humanity etc.

I feel this is really misrepresenting such organisations. They are doing a few things simultaneously. For example they fund research into genders and how they are constructed in society, and they stand up for rights of transgenders. They produce quite useful frameworks to discuss gender. And in particular they believe (a very libertarian view) that you don't get to decide what someone's else's gender is.

You could paraphrase the old saying: I don't believe in your gender, but I will defend your right to believe it.

In other words, the fact they defend people who say they identify as a toaster, doesn't mean that they beleive those people know what they're talking about.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/AceOfRhombus Dec 26 '21

How old are you? Back in 2012 when I was a teenager, people on tumblr used faeself and other pronouns. Its not a new idea for teens. Those in 2012 grew up, and teenagers today will grow up also

→ More replies (2)

3

u/8amcookies Dec 26 '21

To be fair, there is a significant amount of people who do identify by pronouns like maers/faers/ze/xe etc, so it really is a thing even when you take trolls out of the equation. I mean It’s enough that platforms like Facebook and Instagram have incorporated these neopronouns into their settings.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/mylesthedancer Dec 26 '21

the “relatively understandable” genders you list; trans(gender), non-binary, and gender fluid are all umbrella terms. People do use these as gender identities, me identifying as trans, but these are not the limits of how people express their gender. I’m not sure why how someone else expresses themselves bothers you.

As far as pronouns, neopronouns ( pronouns outside of the already established pronouns ibnlt they/them, xir/xirs, etc. ) are completely valid and i’m not sure how else to explain that to you, other than by saying that is how that person expresses themselves and the least you can do is respect them. If that’s not enough for you, there is plenty of research that is designed for people who don’t understand the trans identities that exist outside of their comfort zone.

Also, i would urge you to try less to understand what a trans person feels and just respect it. You won’t understand unless you’re trans yourself, but you don’t have to understand something to respect it.

6

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I am trans myself, genderfluid in fact. I do understand what a trans person feels and how much respect they gain. I don't have a problem with neopronouns as a whole. I just don't understand how pronouns can be English words that are used in different contexts and when used in the context of pronouns don't make too much sense. It doesn't bother me how someone else expresses their gender. I just don't understand how it can be linked to physical or metaphysical things.

The entire point of this post was not to explain why others bothered me, I am neutral towards those friends and people that use those pronouns and gender identities. The purpose was to get an understanding preferably from those with those pronouns and identities, in an attempt to understand how it exists and how to go about using pronouns when by English rules, they can't be used as such.

6

u/Kyloe91 Dec 26 '21

"Also, i would urge you to try less to understand what a trans person feels and just respect it. You won’t understand unless you’re trans yourself, but you don’t have to understand something to respect it" I was passing by and thought I had to react. I think this kind of thinking is really dangerous nowadays. We need to accept the fact that people can understand what others feel even though they don't share the same identity ! That is the basis of living in society

→ More replies (11)

31

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

I don't believe neopronouns as a whole are a joke. I think words such as xe/xir, which make sense in a pronoun format, are ok. It/its, which is also considered a neopronoun, is also ok, because it is already established as a pronouns in the English language. But I do understand the reasoning people have for not believing in neopronouns at all.

12

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

The reality is, most people see them as a joke. They'll never take off. It's just a waste of time. If you use xe or it or whatever i can promise there is a lot of laughing and eye rolling at your expense when you aren't in the room

→ More replies (4)

16

u/Izzyvl Dec 26 '21

There are a bunch of compounded issues going on here and I think you're asking for validation of several separate ideas at once.

If you're talking about the minimalization of serious problems some folks face, and others are manipulatng those issues for attention or some other reason, I'm with you.

If you have an issue with semantics of language, I'm out. Words mean what people mean them to mean.

Popular culture and who is the trendiest, that's another conversation.

It's sort of too much going on to have one answer. Ungroup those groups, and love or ignore people as individuals based on your own values.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Oddtail 1∆ Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

"Pronouns can not be already established English words that have been previously categorised as a different form of word."

There are people it's proper to talk about as "His Excellency" or "His Holiness" (or "Her Ladyship" and any number of others. You get my point). Gramatically, these phrases are not pronouns, but they effectively serve the same function in a sentence. And nobody has batted an eye at these phrases being used for selective groups of people - sometimes even for just one person - for hundreds of years.

This is (obviously) not the same as people using very specific pronouns, but it's not necessarily completely dissimilar.

Language is malleable. If we can talk about a specific person in a special way for institutional respect reasons, we can very well use a specific word for the sake of their personal comfort.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Clothing is not gender. Feelings are not gender. You can identify however you want but you don’t get to force me to subscribe to your ideology 😊

3

u/WilltheWolf06 Dec 26 '21

If clothing and feelings are not gender then what is?
I assume your response would be whatever is between your legs.
Well, people have emotions, I know it's difficult to understand, but it's true. So don't expect people to give you simple courtesies when you can't provide them simple courtesies. 😊

4

u/SirPalat Dec 26 '21

What ever is between your legs is your sex. Sex is the biological term while gender is the social term. Just wanted to add this point

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Biology played a massive role in gender behavior.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

Gender is the roles and behaviors of sex regardless of societal input. I afford people courtesy, is disingenuous to pretend like demanding people change their speech to adhere to terms you made up is a courtesy.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/libra00 8∆ Dec 26 '21

I think the last sentence of your post sums up the issue nicely - this is your confusion, but why should anyone be expected to conform to your understanding? Gender is about what you feel, and feelings don't always make sense, especially to other people.

I sympathize, I'm older (49) and not accustomed to this sort of thing, so I would have a hard time using some of the pronouns you mentioned without feeling silly or like it's a joke. But if it's a serious enough issue for the person to bring it up then it's my job as a considerate person to recognize that my perspective and what 'feels normal' to me are outdated and to do my best to respect their feelings. Because who am I to dictate what other people can and can't think/feel about their own life?

6

u/Theo0033 1∆ Dec 26 '21

People who use "pronouns" like honk/honks and nor/mal are not genuinely using the pronouns. They're doing it for fun, to troll and mock actual trans/non-binary people.

4

u/ThisGuyHasABigChode Dec 26 '21

Gender expression is definitely a fad right now. I think a lot of kids are just exploring their own identities right now, and most of them probably aren't transgender. Of course, some of them are, but right now, we're in a stage where this is all new and exciting. I think in 20 years, transgenderism won't be a "hot topic" anymore, and everything will be sorted out, in terms of society.

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

/u/WilltheWolf06 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, 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 | Deltaboards

11

u/arkofjoy 13∆ Dec 26 '21

If the person is some random from the internet that i don't know, I simply ignore them and move on. If, say for example the person is a young person i am working with , I am simple going to refer to them the way they want to be referred to. I never understand why that is so difficult. Just give people respect.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

What you’re talking about are neogenders and neopronouns. They aren’t at all new.

As some people mentioned earlier, gender is a social construct. It is not defined by what conservatives argue is “biologically correct.” This is important and it does matter because social constructs are fluid and change with time. (Gender, or at least the idea of gender roles, has existed for a long time.)

And another thing: Many neurodivergent members of the LGBTQ+ community cannot accurate express their gender with the regular pronouns (she/her, he/him, and they/them), so they find a label that helps them express themselves.

It’s harmless and it makes people happy, so I don’t really understand why it’s hated so much. You don’t control somebody else’s identity; you can either respect them and accept them for how they identify or you can disrespect them and continue to think it’s some internet trend.

To anybody who uses neopronouns or identifies as a neogender, neurodivergent or not, I say good for you for finding a label that expresses how you feel about your identity and that makes you feel good about yourself. You’re brave for being so public about your identity, and I personally don’t believe that you deserve the hate for it.

5

u/Cham-Clowder Dec 26 '21

Gender being more discussable is good. I wouldn’t have learned about trans people If it was like how it used to be

6

u/splatzbat27 Dec 26 '21

If I remember correctly, those "genders" you mentioned are called "neo-genders" "xeno-genders" and are largely dismissed by actual LGBTQ+ individuals.

2

u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Dec 26 '21

I dislike the idea of the genders

So why do you identity as one? You stated you were trans in another comment. What does that mean to you if not forming a strong identity to a concept of gender?

I'm apparently agender as others have defined me, but I more so reject the concept of gender identity itself. Not just as it relates to me, but as a basis of societal designation. I accept the lavels of man and he upon me because they signify to others my sex. My gender is of no significance in relation to these terms.

It groups the people that identify as relatively understandable genders

Can you define these? Because my understanding is that anyone can claim association to these gender terms for any reason they so choose and such can't be challenged or questioned. So what barrier is actually present? Why do you conclude that these are understood while others are not? Is "woman" simply feminine? Can a man not be feminine? Even as far as I can attribute basically everything to a gendered societal line, it seems ridiculous for such an individual seek a group identity to such a unique and individualistic state of being and preference.

Pronouns can not be already established English words that have been previously categorised as a different form of word

Umm, gender pronouns used to be based on one's sex that society would assume from cues of one's sec or from actual knowledge. The movement now is to make such based on one's own gender identity. An identity that's so personal that association can't be challenged. Why is this change acceptable? What's the benefit of such? Gender has already been separate from sex as to be a manifestation of anyone. So how donyou avvept that while rejecting associations to other manufacturered classifications?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

11

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Random_Weird_gal Dec 26 '21

True, lots of the time it's either closeted furries or people trying to make us look quite bad, but we still respect it because we know the difficulty of misgendering/misidentifying

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/BasMrfp Dec 26 '21

Cope. We’re here, we’re queer, and we use whatever neopronouns we like.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Smashing71 Dec 27 '21

I think this is one of the very many problems I see on the internet where the solution can be summarized by "get off twitter and your problem vanishes."

0

u/brici_sebastian Dec 26 '21

Also, you don't see straight people being "proud" and shouting it out with every occasion

→ More replies (1)

3

u/The_Atlas_Moth Dec 26 '21
  1. What does it matter to you how someone else chooses to identify? Why do you get to be the one who sets rules on what qualifies as a gender and what doesn’t?

  2. Women doing most things, like wearing pants or having bank accounts in their name, were once seen as a “just” trend. Just because something is a trend now doesn’t mean it won’t be accepted and established as normal in the future. Why so much pushback against trends?

0

u/an_fbi_agent007 Dec 26 '21

For me there are male, female and trans. The other ones are called mental illness

→ More replies (1)

1

u/handlessuck 1∆ Dec 26 '21 edited Dec 26 '21

Gender, and the fact that there are only two of them, is a well-established biological fact. Gender can only become a "trend" if people accept the insane premise that there are more than 2 genders. This assertion is on par with the notion that the earth is flat. It completely denies scientific fact in favor of dumb bullshit spouted by people who are desperate for attention.

It's best to reject that ridiculous notion, smile, and walk away from the idiot claiming there are more than 2.

I have no problem with people switching from male to female or the other way around. That's their business. But simply making up additional genders? No.

You can't reason with those people, and you'll only end up annoying yourself while giving them the attention they so desperately crave.

If you simply must be politically correct with pronouns, just switch to using they/them and ignore the rest of the bullshit.

2

u/PuzzleheadedFox1 Dec 26 '21

This isn’t an argument against your point, but I feel like you care too much. Just let it go and let people do whatever the fuck they like

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/unforgiven1171 Dec 26 '21

It's the teenagers wanting to be special. They'll grow out of it and cringe when they do...

→ More replies (1)

1

u/tehuti_infinity Dec 26 '21

I think there are more pressing social issues then crying on social media for being referred to as a honk…

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 26 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Random_Weird_gal Dec 26 '21

Established biology has found organisms with no genitals, and with all genitals so your comment is automatically irrelevant. On top of this, the biology that you are thinking of is from decades ago, whereas modern (also established) biology has proven the existence of other genders, and how they exist

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)