Talk:Non-binary gender

The recurring edit war
So, I'm getting involved. This quoted bit: "On the other hand, an argument can be made that by unconditionally accepting anyone's self-identification as equally legitimate as a binary trans person's biological condition (see ), transsexuality is delegitimatized as something that requires nothing but a person's word and is therefore functionally equivalent to being a choice. It also opens the way for people who are not trans to invade and appropriate trans spaces and resources." Is nonsense. Let's go over it shall we?

Firstly, "...unconditionally accepting anyone's self-identification as equally legitimate as a binary trans person's biological condition..." is a straight up misrepresentation of the facts. Biological research (see this biologist's blog post for an example) has backed these claims. Furthermore, this argument is recycled Transphobia and homophobia. And I'm going to preempt your response, yes actually it is. The root claim is that self expression of internal emotional and physiological states is invalid, which, given we can't read mind, makes it unfalsifiable and unscientific.

Moving on, we have the second half of this claim... "...transsexuality is delegitimatized as something that requires nothing but a person's word and is therefore functionally equivalent to being a choice." Congratulations, you've just made an argument that TERFs and homophobes would envy. Guess what? We ultimately require binary trans people's word that they have gender dysphoria. Why? because even if a doctor diagnoses them, the doctor still has to ask them questions and the binary trans person has to answer in order to fulfill the diagnosis process. How do homophobes fit into this? We have to take people at their word when they say they're gay. This further applies to all forms of sexual attraction, since ultimately, yeah, we do have to take people at their word.

Finally, we have the last sentence... "It also opens the way for people who are not trans to invade and appropriate trans spaces and resources." Let me open by saying I hate this argument. I hate it with a burning fiery passion that rivals the pits of hell. I hate it with an inferno of loathing. Why? Because this is repackaging of the Trans bathroom panic, the trans athlete panic, multiple panics over gay and lesbian rights, and even a rehash of arguments against repealing Jim Crow segregation. This is the very definition of of a bad argument. This argument should be displayed in public, in all its forms, as a stupid bigoted, moronic argument.

In conclusion, stop re-adding these moronic arguments. That isn't really a request, you're wrong and your arguments are stupid. 13:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oxy was pinged because she was the last one to revert this, not because she made the dumbfuck arguments. 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
This section is rife with flawed argumentation. Throughout this entire site, much emphasis has been placed on the concepts of not accepting a position until it is supported by science, picking the more plausible of the existing explanations, and the burden of proof being on the person making the claim. With that being said, this section handwaves all these issues and contradicts these notions by stating that despite the science not yet supporting the idea, to go along with it anyway (citing "open-mindeness"). It then delves into a strawman non-sequitur that implies that if you're against the aforementioned lack of evidence regarding the reality of non-binary genders, you're just being a dick and making it a bigger deal (than presumably someone making such a big deal out of it that they want people to treat them differently than before). It's an appeal to shame in addition to the problems I listed. It also doesn't mention any good faith criticisms like the impracticality of their/them pronouns. It seems like this section is just used as a blunt instrument to attack what the writer assumes to be bigots, which is rather unlike criticism sections on other articles/encyclopedias, where they at least attempt to portray the arguments that the critics propose without necessarily condoning them. Here it's just a token "yeah the pathetic scum subhumans may resort to name calling to dismiss the idea, but they're idiots who cares? Also, did you know some of these critics are violent offenders?" 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this comment misses something about the scientific method: right now, because "science not yet supporting the idea", the current scientific status is: we do not have a proof it's true, we do not have a proof it's wrong. Therefore, a person pretending "it's wrong" is in the same position as a one pretending "it's true": this person has a position not supported by science, and the burden of the proof "it's wrong" is on this person. I think it's reasonnable to favor the most plausible explanation, but unfortunately, some people mistakes it with "the statu quo" or "the most simplistic one". With the current status of established facts in science, we now know that gender dysphoria is a real thing, that gender identity therefore corresponds to something that can develop in parallel, and therefore, the most plausible explanation is that in absence of strong argument to explain why it would be suppressed at 100% (and still not suppress at 100% gender dysphoria in the binary system), there is no reason to think "exotic" genders do not exist. For the rest of the comment, while I reserve my jugement on the details, I think the article tries to describe more or less correctly the mentality around the "critics". That not all critics are like that, sure, but it does not mean we should give a misleading description of the context by ignoring that. 90.246.192.164 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You talk in circles, but you fail to address how the burden of proof is on anyone but the person making the claim that it is true. Given Hanlon's Razor, the default is skepticism, not acceptance. You're talking about gender dysphoria somehow proving non-binary genders exist but the mere fact gender dysphoric individuals view themselves as specifically the opposite of what they're born as reinforces a binary gender dichotomy. "There is no reason to think "exotic" genders do not exist." But you haven't given a compelling reason to believe that they do, as like I said, gender dysphoria really has no bearing on genders outside the binary really existing, or alternatively, being better explained by wanting to be the opposite gender instead of some undiscovered one. I also think that you're missing my larger point that even if non-binary genders do happen to exist in reality and not merely the unfalsifiable wishes of an individual, that this section presents some very bad argumentation to that end. Just saying that everyone that disagrees with you is an asshole might feel like the cathartic thing to do, but it's not really how adults function when talking about complex issues. Or even if it was, vitriol written here just underlines how little of a case the article is presenting, and it's really not par for the course of the quality of the rest of the articles on this site. The other guy seems to be a few chapters behind, I think I'd rather discuss this with you instead. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not really understand my argument. The (simplified) model that I think is the most believable is the following: because evolution constraints, the male-female aspects have a high probability, but still, some stuffs are not "aligned" (not only gender identity with transgender, but also sexuality with homosexual). Because non-"aligned" cases can exist, it will be surprising that the nature is such that it is NOT able to supress this non-alignement for those well established cases BUT be able to supress at 100% this non-"alignement" when it is an "exotic" gender (and the reason I mentioned gender dysphoria is because gender dysphoria proves that gender identity is a "thing on its own", with some freedom). This is my point: partisants of the "there is only two genders" never answer this question satisfactorilly: while there is a lot of "special cases", and that gender identity has some freedom of mouvement w.r.t. the other sexual markers, why the possibility of a third gender is so magically incredible? The scientific way is to accept for base hypothesis the most probable and simplest model, in our case, the possibility of "exotic" genders. This is why this article is this way: people who support so strongly the binary model don't follow a scientific process, they shape their model on what they believe and say "look, my model explains 99%, so, your model that explains 99.9% is wrong". By the way, the fact that trans identifies with the second most probable gender is exactly what we expect in a model with the possibility of "exotic" gender (exactly like I've said, you seems to look at your own model and pretending it's better without checking if the observations are not compatible with the other model). For the rest, I just repeat what I've said: some pro-binary-gender can be rationnal, but it's not fair to just ignore that the majority is irrational, or to jump through hoops to avoid offending the poor rational ones. 90.246.192.164 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If at any time it seems I don't respond satisfactorily to your argument, it's likely because your sentence structure is frankly incomprehensible at times. Once you parse through the word-padding, it's clear you didn't actually address my point at all. You claim that your model proves the possibility of exotic genders, but your points don't illustrate this at all. You keep using very loose words like surprising (to you), possible, and magic, all very abstract words, when the whole point is that the default position cannot be something that no evidence points to. Your argument is at its rawest form stating "nothing says non-binary genders CAN'T exist" which is very weak indeed. I hope you don't hold the same views on deism. But to address your, to put it lightly, uninspired, argument of shifting burden of proof back to me: while gender is a social construct, it is a social construct that is built on a concept that is considered reality: sex. Other genders would have to use sex as a model or else be something entirely different than genders. It's just inherent in the logic and linguistic structure. If a person felt like they were another race, or age or any other demographic, that would not fall under non-binary gender, because gender as a concept is inherent to sex. That is not to say gender must necessarily coincide with listed sex but one model is based off the other, and a good deal of non-binary expression just ironically enforces a gender dichotomy. Your claim that followers of a binary model not following a scientific process is not supported by anything, and is argument by assertion, as well as your PIDOOMA stats. In reality, non-binary genders as a concept are unproven and unfalsifiable. Again, your claim that 'gender dysphoria validating opposite gender means that exotic genders are validated' is an argument by assertion and not supported by your own points. Let's put it another way: IF non-binary genders is supported by science and not merely speculation, then I task you to re-write the section while providing sources. After all, I'm not necessarily against the idea of non-binary genders (if it is rooted in rationality), but I am against a website that purports to address fallacious argumentation to be using that same argumentation when it suits them. Your talk of 'offending "pro-binaries" is a red herring. The article, as it is written is more irrational than supposed pro-binaries because it acknowledges that the science does not support it but attacks the opposition anyway. Just because you can poison the well doesn't mean the criticism is altogether invalid. After all, I could strawman your two wonderful contemporaries, who basically just said "fuck you" and left as examples that the non-binary movement is not credible, but I have more sense than that. My only larger point is that if the science supports the idea, the criticism wouldn't have to needlessly appeal to shame, it could just stand by its own merits. That it feels the need to only showcases that logic is NOT on their side, and it has to utilize an emotional attack to feel validated. It should be re-written or undermine the credibility of the argument. And before any "highly intelligent individual" comments, inflammatory comments are not necessarily "too offensive for print" but if they substitute proper argumentation, they should be criticized just as if it came from a so-called "acceptable target". 73.2.246.20 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "You claim that your model proves the possibility of exotic genders" where did I do that? This is absolutely not my point, and if you miss that, no wonder you have objection to the rest. I don't say "nothing says a third gender CAN'T exist", what I say is "the current understanding of the facts makes a model in which the third gender does not exist really complicated", because this model should explains why nature is not able to suppress at 100% things like homosexuality, but can for some unknown reason suppress at 100% a phenonemon that would be a normal consequence of our current understanding (normal consequence because the existence of gender dysphoria proves the gender identity is not bounded by genital sex, hormonal sex or chromosomes). Again, let's be clear, there is no proof. Neither that "there is a third gender" or "there is only two genders". But because the burden of the proof is to the person that affirms one or the other, until then, the null hypothesis is the one that fits the best with the current observations, and the "there is only two genders" does not fit well, because it is unable to explain why there is strictly two genders but there is also homosexual people or transgender persons. It's funny that you criticize this article, and then 1) do not care of what I say (I'm okay with you not understanding the first time, but then, I've explicitely said that it's not what I meant, and even if it was written in the worst english in the world, I cannot say how you've missed that unless you are only interested in presenting anyone who don't agree with you as proponents of caricatural position), 2) paint me in such caricatural way. Obviously, your critics of this article are unsincere, because otherwise, you would not do exactly what you criticize. You attack the two other persons here, but look yourself into a mirror, you are certainly not behaving better than them. And by doing so while pretending you are better than them, you just discredit yourself. I will stop wasting my time with you. The discussion was however not a waste of time: you were pretending that there are people like you that merit to be taken seriously, and then demonstrated that yourself is certainly not able to have a discussion without falling into caricature and condescension. 90.246.192.164 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So after I demonstrate your premises are illogical, you're going to tuck your tail between your legs and run? I don't think I said anything unobjectionable about you, but I apologize if you took offense to something I've said. I even made sure to let you know I respected you more than the others. That being said, your premises are all over the place, and if you look closely, don't support your argument at all. You make some vague appeal to nature, then mention homosexuality (which has nothing to do with gender, its regarding sexuality). You claim that both models are equally inadequate, while failing to really illustrate why a binary model is illogical. Like I said, transsexuals affirm a gender binary. The studies that show that their brain waves match the sex that they desire in no way indicate anything that breaches the realm outside of the binary. Gender is a social construct, true enough, but this discounts the fact that gender is a social construct created relative to the real concept of sex. This being said, it would make sense that any deviation from our norms of what constitutes gender would still use sex as a model. Non-binary genders do not support this because the inaccuracy of the phrasing belies the truth that most, if not all, non-binaries still use stereotypical identifiers of one or both genders, just doing so within some sort of combination. This is all irrelevant in face of your most illogical point (and my primary point as to why the section needs to be rewritten): You said that the null hypothesis is the one the fits best with current observations and that is most assuredly the current model. If it were not, the non-binary model would have supplanted it in science already. If it were truly 50/50 like you purport, then the current hypothesis would still be the default until another hypothesis supplanted it with proper evidence. Your insistence that homosexuality and transsexuals conflate with the current model is not enough without providing sources or evidence. So again, my point is that if the science does not support the non-binary model, then it should not be assumed to be valid, consistent with the logic that the rest of the sit purports to hold up. And don't think your poisoning of the well won't go unnoticed: you can try to dismiss my arguments by implying that I'm bigoted and thus my arguments have no merit but anyone can read this and see your fallacies and find out that immature tactic isn't going to fly. That you felt condescended to does not make my arguments less worthy. Indeed, I've felt rather condescended to myself, but I'm not so foolish as to saying your position has no merits because of it. Rather, your fallacies make your argumentation poor, and as far as the merit of the topic, I think I reasonably illustrated that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, being that non-binary genders are valid. You have not sufficiently proven that they are. With that being said, it would make sense to change the article to reflect this. Or again, if you feel like the article would appear better written under your paradigm, then change it and source yourself. But as it stands, the article contradicts itself by saying science doesn't support the concept, yet supports it anyway 2601:3C4:4000:99D0:7DB9:4AE9:6715:1C5 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "So after I demonstrate your premises are illogical": you DID NOT do that, you INVENT a premise that I'VE NEVER USED, and I've calmly explained that it's not what I've done TWICE. If you were, as you pretend, really interested by a debate, obviously, you would never behave the way you do right now. For example: "mention homosexuality (which has nothing to do with gender, its regarding sexuality)", do you realize that I KNOW THAT PERFECTLY, but I don't use homosexuality to "prove gender", but to demonstrate that nature is not able to constrain at 100% based on the usual binary reproduction. If something as strong as binary reproduction is not able to be forced to be 100%, how is it possible that gender identity, which is SOMETHING ELSE, but with even less "natural selection" constraints, is forced to be 100% binary. It's the third time I'm explaining, but obviously you refuse to hear my argument. I would LOVE you to provide me with valid counter-argument, but honestly, none of yours makes touch even remotely my reasonning. Feel free to depict yourself as a victim, but everyone here can see that you are not a serious debater (consciously or not), and it just confirm that the article is correct when it describes people like you as not worth the time. 90.246.192.164 (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep talking in circles. You claim that I'm mischaracterizing your position then crying victim when I ask you to defend that assertion. Your essential point, regardless of how badly you word it is still flawed now matter how you choose to express it because you fail to answer the critical question of the debate: "Does the science support the position, or if not, is there any reason for this position to be considered the default over existing models?" Your answer boils down to "This makes sense to me so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that it could." This completely dodges any scrutiny by saying its a POSSIBLE explanation, but the premises don't line up for it to be the most reasonable explanation. Pure wishful thinking on your part. You can cry foul all you want about me "not really getting it", but if your position WAS reasonable, it would follow a natural set of premises, hopefully with as little speculative language as possible. By the way the phrase "able to constrain at 100%" is gibberish word salad. I know you're trying to tie it in to your theory that homosexuality and transgender-ism somehow prove the plausibility of gender non-binary but this garbage makes no improvement on your flimsy premise. And I did provide a counter-argument, being that transgender-ism supports the idea of a gender binary, but most importantly your reasoning is completely wrong when we boil down to the ACTUAL premises at hand being discussed: 1. you are the one claiming against the scientific default of gender binary 2. burden of proof is ON YOU to make a compelling enough argument to supplant the default in favor of your position 3. Coulda, shoulda and woulda ARE NOT sufficient proofs for your case. 4. Even if both systems of explanation WERE equal (spoiler alert: yours isn't), with the gender binary being the default, impetus is on YOU to provide more evidence to regard your position as the default; if things were 50/50 unexplainable, the gender binary would still win out. Of course, that's not the case here. Your position is in clear violation of Occam's razor (Though I do apologize, I think I mistakenly said Hanlon's razor when I first alluded to this) and thus even if by cosmic accident, you are proven correct in the distant future, your argumentation proves that you and your position are the clear loser in this current discussion. No amount of shameless moral equalizing me with bigots will change that. Maybe next time choose a more logical avatar to argue your position and your efforts would be more successful. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize that my assertion is NOT "nonbinary gender is proven", right? I'm talking about the null hypothesis, which, by definition, is not proven (otherwise it's not a hypothesis). And, yes, the scientific community support this as the null hypothesis (but if you ask me for paper with the proof of this hypothesis, again, you miss the point). Again, the model of a strictly binary gender identity fails the naturalness and fails the Occam's razor, because it requires complicated ad-hoc artefacts to explain why suddenly the gender identity does not follow the rules that are considered as the normal ones. But, hey, keep saying "gibberish word salad" all you want, it does not change the reality. All your discussion is based on the fact that 100% binary model is the "simplest one", while I've NEVER SEEN anyone giving a non over-complicated explaination on why random evolution managed to create a perfectly binary system while there is no constraints to do so, and that it failed in any other cases that were even more constrained. If it's your assertion, which is, again, NOT the scientific consensus, give me some PROOFS. The burden of the proof is to the person that propose the complicated model, and your model is highly complicated (but maybe you miss that, same as someone saying that newtonian mechanic is easier to apprehend than Einstein general relativity, while Einstein general relativity is less complicated that a newtonian model, as a newtonian model needs to add ad-hoc elements to correct, for example, the orbit of Mercury. This is why newtonian models are rejected by Occam's razor) 90.246.192.164 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very curious as to how you think the "they" pronoun set can possibly be reasonably considered impractical. Also, we don't care about lending credence to terrible ideas to promote "neutrality". 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonbinary genders exist in other cultures, and as far as they're concerned they're totally valid genders. Gender is a social construct separate from that of sex, piss off. — Oxyaena Harass  13:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @BoN, the scientific consensus is that nonbinary genders are real. Is the scientific community wrong? — Oxyaena Harass  15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC) bruh you’re just repeating what previous person had said except in a more oversimplified manner. And also post sources instead anecdotes before you tell somebody to piss off. 2607:FB90:25D3:E769:380B:3967:1105:4533 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want a source, this can be something to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoUORx0LeIc I'm basically posting a link that reverend black percy already posted. Feel free to post your thoughts on c0nc0rdance's argument. QiShung (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Gender identity is a concept ideated by postmodern sociologists who think that everything is a social construct (including science), therefore the reason why those anti-scientifical beliefs spread is because people made confusion between a phylosophical stand point and actual science that relies on empirical evidence. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 151.20.64.200 / talk
 * Source? 14:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

A little thought
As long as non-binary people are nice, I will be nice back. I hold no prejudice, although I am still a bit confused with the whole thing but am willing to learn. If someone can explain to me, please put it in terms where someone who never met a non-binary person can understand --Racia zombio94 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any particular point of the article you're stuck on? --Zoe Kirk (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section
Ehh, the whole section reads as a single editor's strawman. I know this isn't Wikipedia, and there's a lot more latitude for style, but this is such an over-the-top misrepresentation of a critical look at the topic as to strain the credibility of the entire article. Unless someone can put something a bit more reasonable in its place, it would be better off simply removed. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck. As you can see, I suggested that the exact same changes be made and was met with a poisoning the well designation, told to fuck off, and all suggestions ignored. It turns out that suggestions labeled as "wrongthink" will not be taken into consideration here, regardless if those suggestions are editorial in nature. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strawman of what exactly? I don't really see much criticism of non-binary genders other than "it's made up".  There is not much to work with because most criticism (at least of what I seen) don't even engage in the topic seriously to begin with. If you have examples of serious criticism that treats the anthropological and historical data seriously that doesn't just boil down to eurocentrism I would love to see it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC).
 * Whenever someone tries to engage in the topic seriously, people like yourself with limited reading comprehension abilities resort to ignoring what's being said to focus on your own topics to galvanize. Again, the main contention with this poorly written section is that it concedes that there's no evidence to support the reality of non-binary genders, yet still bludgeons whoever disagrees with it with the "bigot" label. Here's the gauntlet: either rewrite the section to more accurately reflect that there's no objective consensus, and thus be less fallacious and emotional OR rewrite it to insist that there is objective proof and cite it, thus quashing the issue altogther. I don't see how it's mandatory to believe all the claims stated in an article to want it to be written not in an anti-intellectual, amateurish and juvenile way. I mean do you want proponents of your position to be associated with stupidity? 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "no evidence"? The article is full of multiple examples of anthropological evidence of gender classifications that exist outside of a binary. If you understand gender to be a cultural construct, then that there being cultural constructs for gender that exist outside a mutually exclusive binary is evidence enough that non-binary gender identities "exist".  Anthropology is a science like any other, and the other social and life sciences only re-affirm these claims. Look at the American medical and American psychological associations official stances on what "gender" is as well as the world health organization and you already have confirmation of these facts from relevant experts and scientific institutions. There is no concession of there being "no evidence" of such identities existing, just no evidence currently exists as to explain neurobiologically why these identities exist. (which isn't to say that no such evidence will ever surface).   But even then it isn't really a requirement to state such identities exist to begin with. Your status as a "New York Citizen" or a "Political Refugee" are "real" categories but good luck finding anything in neurobiology to validate them. It's a fallacious category error to think that such things necessarily need to be validated in such a domain in order to be "real". Gender itself isn't really a matter of biological fact, but neither is money or the government. Doesn't invalidate those latter categories so why would it invalidate the former? Also your entire "argument" here is just a seething ad hominem argument. There is no real premise to the invalidity of non-binary gender identities being misrepresented by insisting people with the belief in their legitimacy are "stupid" or immediately ignoring their question for examples by insisting they have "limited reading comprehension abilities" and "resort to ignoring what's being said to focus on your own topics to galvanize". Those are not examples of strawman fallacies like I asked for.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC).
 * Clearly you haven't even read the article on here about ad hominem if you think an insult in a vaccumm is an ad hominem. None of you can resist talking in circles. My primary point is that any sort of gender is inherently unfalsifiable, not unlike the presence or lack thereof considering deities that you know no doubt seem sure of. It's all well and good to say "all genders that are identified by people inherently exist because of that fact" but that's a tautology. One can say that they are a vassal of Krishna, or the world's only Space Invaders grandmaster, but those self-imposed identities have no bearing on the outside reality of the world. It's not a fallacy at all to suggest that something have at least some evidence behind it to be validated or at least, you should have evidence if you specifically admonish someone else for not believing in it. That's the whole point you people are apparently too dense to comprehend on a basic level. It's fine for whoever to believe whatever they want about themselves. However, you're shifting burden of proof when you try to claim someone else is wrong for not believing that, and that's what the poorly written criticism is doing. As for the strawman, the sentence "So, in conclusion, there is no reason to be dick to non-binary genders. You're not being morally/intellectually superior, you're just being obnoxious. Use their preferred name and pronouns, and don't make a federal case out of it." is very obviously one. It's not supported that someone who doesn't buy the flimsy arguments made in the article is being a "dick" to non-binaries, or even that they don't use their pronouns. Again, the entire argument is based on the crux of this emotional appeal combined with the self-defeating "Until science provides any insight into gender binaries and whether there's any scientific basis to them." It just baffles the mind why you guys are so adamant about requesting overwhelming proof, straying away from fallacious argumentation and combating the beliefs in the unfalsifiable, when you seem eagerly content to do the exact opposite on this argument. And you're too arrogant to even admit that there might be procedural errors in your argumentation, even if you must insist that the crux of your beliefs are correct. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't just insult someone in a vacuum. You quite deliberately used an attack on character as substitute for a substantive argument (and you are still doing so now). What makes you think these identities are for certain self imposed?  I didn't state them to be self imposed. Nothing in this article suggests that being designated as "Hijra" or "two-spirit" is a matter of self imposition.  Non-binary identities don't come from a vacuum.  When someone self identities as a "political refugee" or a "citizen of the state of New York"  because based in their circumstances they believe they meet the definition for such categories is that a self-imposition? On the basis then would you say that "citizenship" has "no bearing on the outside reality of the world". Again I think your entire "criticism" is based in a category error.  Clearly there is an actual meaning and referent to being a "vassal of krishna" that actually has to be met in order for the self-identification to work.  What do you think the criteria/definition to being non-binary is to even make a remotely comparable analogy? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC).
 * You're clearly just lying now, or are still just that ignorant to the definition of ad hominem. Your inability to understand that has no bearing on you being wrong about the non-binary issue. Do you think you understand the concept yet? I don't care if you do, really, I just think it's hilarious that people like you edit every day without understanding the basic tenants of your site's own objective articles. Regardless, no you have not made an argument that non-binary genders meet any criteria to be acknowledged outside of self-identification. And *again* if they have, and someone else with a brain can clearly articulate it, why have the passage contradicting that notion in the criticism section (my entire point)? Your citizen argument actually defeats your point, because it's very well and good to identify as a citizen of New York, but if the person doesn't have U.S. citizenship and is say, a documented Canadian citizen, then their identity could be simultaneously true for them, as well as not being corroborated by any facts or documentation. They could apply for citizenship, but changing one's documentation to reflect non-binary is sort of like applying for citizenship to a country that doesn't exist. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not lying. Look at the number of propositions you provide that start with "you" and then go on to infer my motivations and character. What does that have anything to do with legitimacy of non-binary identities? It's a fallacy of a irrelevant premise to talk about what my character is like, and what I can and cannot understand on the basis of a presumed dogmatism; that is by definition what an ad hominin fallacy is -- to use an attack on someone's character in place of a relevant argument. Also you are cherry picking my analogies ignoring the one I made about "political refugees" which is not something solely decided by official documentation. Neither is being a member of a tribe, being Hindu, being utilitarian, or being an athiest, etc.  There are so many cultural constructs in society we treat as legitimate identities with no basis in identifiable neurobiology or political documentation. Why is having a "non-binary" identity any different? My status as being bisexual doesn't fit either category of identifiable neurobiology, or official political documentation, are you going to tell me that being bisexual on the basis of my self-identification is therefore illegitimate? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC).
 * There's this thing called interpolation. Basically there's a well studied trans identity, and if people can jump from one part of a bimodal part to another, then there has to be an inbetween even if the inbetween lacks "proof" or "explicit evidence". It'll be nice to have the explicit stuff, yeah, but there's no need to exactly figure this out. 00:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the neurology part in the header unless someone wants to add it in, but I don't think it should be at the top, but rather its own section on any future evidence about the neurological underpinnings of non-binary genders. That's a distinct topic from the actual act of being non-binary. People can criticize the neurological evidence, but the non-binary self-identification is not really up for debate. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

BoN isn't being very persuasive, just really ranty and full of unwarranted accusations. Actually being borderline offensive with their callous dismissal of nonbinary identity. Discussion collapsed. Stay out of this topic, BoN especially considering you've poured a lot of garbage in prior discussions above. 01:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Why I'm deleting the criticism section

 * It repeatedly claims there's no scientific evidence for non-binary genders, which is false, and does so without sources.
 * It implicitly adopts the perspective in some sections that NB people are identifying as such for attention, before half-heartedly countering it.
 * It then also implicitly adopts the perspective that NB people are doing it because it's a trend, before half-heartedly countering it.
 * It wraps up with essentially the old position of "I don't get trans people, but sure, they can dress however they want."

Please do not revert the edit. This is an out-dated and offensive section which doesn't really serve its purpose. It's been the subject of controversy, too. I just don't think this section does what the person who wrote it thinks its doing. Why should we doubt how someone personally identifies? Why should we offer skepticism one someone says something like, "I don't identify as a man or a woman"? That's not skepticism; it's cynicism. Even if it was written with good intentions, this does a terrible job of defending from criticism, all it actually does is attract it. If we want a "criticism" section (which is an interested word choice for what is bigotry), we can do a lot better. But I'm not convinced such a section is warrented. Please do not revert the edit. Monochroma (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a section refuting common "objections" can be made. I think DuceMoosolini's edits were a good start, in that regard. Vee (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Binarism invented by colonialist invaders
I deleted the line "In a nutshell: colonialist invaders created the gender binary" because, as I explained in the summary, not all indigenous tribes have two-spirits, and even those that did often still categorized the people in question based on their assigned sex at birth. For example, in many societies, a non-binary gender role was open to AMAB people but not AFAB people. I'm pretty sure every culture ever documented has had gendered social categories of some kind. Someone reverted my edit with no summary. If this page is going to make an extraordinary claim like "no indigenous peoples anywhere ever had a gender binary before it was introduced by colonialist invaders," I think there should at least be a source.Madeleine (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Western version of the gender binary was introduced by invading colonizers and forced onto indigenous peoples. Carthage (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) I think what Carthage says is more accurate. There are many cultures globally that had more than two gender categories or allowed for individuals to change their gendered status culturally because the way they thought about gender was often more about social role than whatever sex organs you had. Yes, it still true that many cultures even some pre-colonized ones only recognized two genders. Many of these cultures that were colonized that had more than two gender categories or allowed for cross-gender identities still ended up being forced by entities like the catholic church to assign gender on the basis of sex as “God intended”. Similar things happened to cultures previously tolerant of homosexuality. It still needs to be reflected that non-binary gender systems were relatively normal, present in various cultures around Africa, India, and many parts of South East Asia prior to colonial contact. Western cultures may not have “invented” the gender-binary but they were the most widespread and ruthless enforcers of it - mostly rationalized through narratives of “Adam & Eve” and viewing “sodomy” as signifying a culture as inherently “irrational”. This is why some academics tie queerphobia to racism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gender roles are also influenced by culture. Among Eastern North American indigenous societies AFAB people were typically the farmers, and not AMAB people. This was actually used as a justification for colonialism, a sort of predecessor to white feminism serving as a tool for colonialist movements in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Classic Maya city state of Palenque had women as well as men honored as royal ancestors, and women served in positions of power (Lady Sak Kuk' being one example), but typically they were expected to step down as ruler/regent when the heir to the throne came of age to rule (which was 12 in ancient Mayan society) or their husbands were no longer ill or away at battle. Another example of cultural variation of gender and gender norms even within the classical gender binary is the tendency of otherwise patriarchal societies like the Jews to measure descent through the matrilineal line, as opposed to the patrilineal line of descent observed in Western cultures. Carthage (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to say that.Madeleine (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)