Talk:Non-binary gender

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What's the third gender?[edit]

It says that in trigender, they shift between "A third gender." What is it? This sounds a bit ridiculous to me. Any scientific evidence to support these people not being full of it? Parogar (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just about any of the third genders mentioned in the article could be options, really. (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Its existence if obvious once you realise that a lot of what we consider 'gender' is more about societal roles, expectations and behaviour than it ever was to do with biology. All it takes is a society where there's a stereotype of behaviour and identity that isn't the same as the local 'male' or 'female'. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not true, though. Scientists believe gender is both societal and environmental, with no standing consensus on which plays the more prominent factor. If you're saying gender is societal, then you're speaking from a position not of science, but of personal, anecdotal observation. Parogar (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
How does something being 'both societal and environmental' stop something from being societal? If you like, just replace 'societal' with 'societal and environmental' in the above. Arguing against the possibility of a third gender requires a strong and unscientific appeal to biological determinism. Once the possibility is on the table, all you need to demonstrate its reality is to find an example, an abundance of which the article provides. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Parogar...there are several other options besides male and female LISTED IN THE ARTICLE that could be the third gender. Unless you want to confront the muxes, hijiras, bissus, two-spirits, and all the other non-binary folks on this planet and tell them that they are "just full of it". Asarelah (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, why is it so impossible that one's neurology can be intersex without one's body being intersex? Binary transsexuals have scientific acceptance as being the gender they identify as due to their neurology. Why are you skeptical the claim of non-binaries to having a different mental wiring? Asarelah (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed of the groups of people who you mentioned above I notice that in every single society in which they exist they are still gender roles for men and women. None of these societies view gender identity as fluid or as being binary but rather they view gender identity as being ternary, quaternary or quinary. Alsto003 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Alex
Listing other (and only a very select few) societies that also believed in these things (like two spirits) doesn't really mean anything, nor does it constitute evidence of anything other than the fact that a few other cultures believed in it. For example: just about every culture since the dawn of mankind has believed in one God or another. Does this prove there must at least be one God? Parogar (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but it proves the existence of religion. Identity -- any identity -- is a societal convention and not just a physical description. Consider nationality. Attempting to define it purely in terms of the place where you were born or the place where you live is inadequate. The reality is more complicated; it involves legal and societal issues and often does not have clear boundaries between one state and another. Ultimately, nationality means what people accept it to mean -- it's a cultural artefact. So it is with gender. They 'believe' they have a different gender, yes, but that (and also perhaps a wider acceptance of that identity in their culture) is all that's required for it to be real. That bar is met. The argument you're making is essentially trying to claim that the existence of passports isn't sufficient to prove the existence of nationality. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
^Very well put, Queex. Asarelah (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, time out[edit]

Are you saying these people can MORPH between genders? Like, boy for 15 minutes, girl for 15 minutes, boy again for 15 minutes? That's some crazy-ass shit. Parogar (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean people who are genderfluid? They exist, yup. And no, they don't switch genders every 15 minutes. (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Bigender people are recognized by the American Psychological Association. And some two-spirits change gender presentation from day to day. Asarelah (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


... yeah I am probably applying way to much of XKCD 386 here, but... it gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling. So anonymous visiting me will ramble on a bit. So, uh the article says there is no current science as to why people behave the way they do (within this topic). I mean, either there is a physiological reason we have yet to discover (aberrant neurology, dna markers and so on), or else it we have to look what we already know about the human psyche and sociology for an explanation. I mean we already know of psychological illnesses that produce a strong need for attention like Munchausen Syndrome or maybe there are other borderline personality disorders at play that mess with someones perception of self. But this is "gayness is a mental sickness" territory, so I don't expect studies to be made very soon. Do I need to make disclaimer that I do not view homosexulality as a mental sickness? In fact, I couldn't care any less about what makes you happy in bed. Or maybe the idea that is all about being a special snowflake is not so far out as many people would like it to be. I also don't buy the analogy to nationality or religion. Me believing that there is one god doesn't make him/her/it real or my believe true by default. It only makes me a monotheist and unlike quantifiable differences like having XY or XX this doesn't (or better, it shouldn't) entitle me to special treatment. And here is the thing, I can change my nationality or religion, even skin color is possible (if you are Micheal Jackson). I could get a baptisement and henceforth call myself a christian. However I can not change my DNA to the degree (in the forseable future anyway) to make me a woman or something in between. Point is, to claim that gender is something that exists decoupled from your DNA is nonsense. Nothing exists in a vacuum and like we take the time into account when judging a work of art, we need to account for all variables, including sociological, psychological and physiological ones. In the end, I think we have to apply the scientific method.

Observation: People claim to be off different gender than the two known ones.

-> Hypothesis: There are indeed more than two genders perviously observed.

-> Null hypothesis: People are making shit up because they want to feel important.

-> Counternull hypothesis: People are suffering from an undiagnosed personality disorder.

For starters and people with communications degrees, having a number of poeple lining up saying "I feel like an indistinct human being" is not going to be sufficient proof. If we can't produce hard data like ct images or DNA markers that show the differences, we need to fall back on statistics, comparing responses to stimuli from the group we want to do science on to one that acts as the control group to which we compare the first. We could compare responses from people who identify as indeterminate to who identify with their biological gender and look if there are sufficient differences or similarities we could use to prove or refute the hypothesis. We can ask psychologists to examine those who take part in a study for personality disorders to proove or refute the counter null by comparing these results to the control group of identify with their biological gender. If neither hypothesis or counterhypothesis are proven to be true, it is prudent to go with the null hypothesis until a better hypothesis comes along that could give us a better explanation the observed phenomenon or wait until technology and research in other areas catches up. (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, your statement that gender is something that cannot be decoupled from DNA is staggeringly ignorant. The article contains a link describing the causes of transsexualism, and transsexualism IS MEDICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY RECOGNIZED. SCIENCE RECOGNIZES BINARY TRANSSEXUALS AS BEING THE GENDER THEY IDENTIFY AS. There are also intersex people in this world whose DNA doesn't match up to the genitals that they were born with. There are cisgender women who were born with vaginas who have XY chromosomes. Second of all, the "intersex neurological condition" hypothesis is just that: A HYPOTHESIS. The article clearly states that NOBODY knows why these people identify as they do. Your idea that these people have some kind of pathological personality disorder not only has no scientific precedent to back it up (unlike the intersex neurology hypothesis), it contributes to the stigmatization of non-binary people, and it is thus socially irresponsible. By the way, a psychological disorder is largely defined by whether or not it impairs ones ability to function and whether or not it causes one distress. The non-binary people from cultures where they are accepted are not viewed as being "sick" or "crazy" or "attention whores" and they are functioning, contributing members of their respective societies. By the way, we ARE ALLOWED to speculate about scientific explanations for unexplained phenomena on Rational Wiki. You want ultra-stringent standards and peer-reviewed papers? Go to regular Wikipedia. Asarelah (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. - The American Psychological Association recognizes bigender people as a subset of transgender people. And NOT as a personality disorder. Asarelah (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Psychology is not reproducible (First results from psychology’s largest reproducibility test) therefore it's just woo. Since none of the alternative hypothesis (neurological, physiological) have substantial evidence, the null hypothesis (attention seeking) remains the most credible. The null hypothesis is supported by overwhelming evidence of chronic attention-seeking behaviour by these individuals (exaggerated dressing, parades, constant victimization, etc.). Things are usually what they seem (Is my son really gay or attention seeking?) (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Really, you cite Yahoo Answers! Hey, there's this guy down the pub wot reckons that these gays.... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Actualy the revealing bit is the question, not the answers (which I had already answered above). But never look beyond your navel. (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm questioning your assertion The null hypothesis is supported by overwhelming evidence of chronic attention-seeking behaviour by these individuals (exaggerated dressing, parades, constant victimization, etc.) and yet the only "evidence" you can provide of "chronic attention-seeking behaviour" is a Yahoo Answers page. Have you any real evidence that non binary gender has any correlation with attention seeking behaviour? Maybe you just don't see those who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Attention-seeking behaviour is self-evident. Your counter argument is an appeal to "invisible proof". No, I don't see those who just want to be left alone. Do you see them? Where? (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You can't just randomly place down a null hypothesis that makes a claim about the intentions of people. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's based on observations, therefore plausible. Give me a better one with observations to match. (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what a null hypothesis is supposed to be. Learn to science. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can't improve on mine then shut the fuck up. (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
H0: There is no physiological cause for those who identify as non-binary.
That took all of 2 seconds, you dipshit. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Good science is the best comeback to bad science. (I don't agree with the abrasive comment, though, but that's a moral difference.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
A null hypothesis must as a minimum explain the observations. Your H0 doesn't, therefore it's not a hypothesis. Take your time, gonzo. Think instead of compulsively posting. (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena
Queex's H0 does exactly that. Your null hypothesis seems to be "my bigotry is correct" which is slightly different. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
145, The null hypothesis might as well be "Hitler did nothing wrong" if that's your justification. It is justified in the same manner as yours. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 12:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did it take you so long? Godwin's_Law (reductio ad Hitlerum). The dork of every debate inevitably surfaces. (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I already bet someone that you would take that as such. Little problem: I didn't compare you - or anyone - to Hitler and/or Nazis. It was a different "reductio ad whateverum". Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"A null hypothesis must as a minimum explain the observations". No, it doesn't. It provides a framework with minimal assumptions within which the likelihood of the observations are assessed. Then that null hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. That's why I said you don't understand hypothesis testing - you seem to think that observations have anything to do with H0. They don't. They shouldn't. They might be why you are doing a test, but that's the full extent of the interaction. You don't seem to even have a middle-school grasp of science, goober. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Considering I know people who identify non-binary but keep it a secret, present as cisgender, and only talk about it with trusted friends, I'm going to call bullshit on this "attention-seeking" crap. I also have no idea how "constant victimization" is an attention-seeking behavior. People mistreat non-binary individuals. That is a fact. Finally, are you going to accuse the people in the cultures in which non-binary genders are considered normal to be "attention whores"? Are you going to actually have the balls to tell Native Americans, who honor Two-Spirits as sacred, that their holy institution that pre-dated colonization and was subject to several efforts to stamp it out by white people is just a lot of "attention seeking"? By the way, as for "exaggerated dress" and behavior, I think you're thinking of drag queens, who are predominantly cisgender men and not non-binary people. Asarelah (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts about third genders[edit]

Not my intention to deny the possibility of other than the two typical genders existing, but reading the examples on this article I couldn't avoid thinking that most of those "third genders" exist in traditional cultures with strongly enforced gender roles, and wouldn't make much sense in a more modern society. For example, without considering myself any other thing than a cisgender male, I do a series of activities (like cooking or changing diapers) that years ago would have marked me as effeminate or not enough masculine. As society liberalizes individuals can feel attracted to people of either sex, dress or act in androgynous ways, and enjoy activities traditionally reserved to the opposite sex without being identified as other than their chosen gender, male or female. But in a society with extremely strict gender roles, simply being a girl who likes sports may mark you as someone who obviously is not a "man" but neither fits in a proper "woman" role. I wonder how many of those historical "third gender" people would be, if put in a modern society, simply trans women, or gay men or even women who wanted to go to college or have economic independence (the Balkan "sworn virgins" seems like it could be this in a lot of the cases) and were forced into the third gender identity by a society who did not want their traditional gender roles contaminated by deviations of the norm. So maybe in the future as gender roles will dilute more and more is going to be less meaningful talking about non-binary genders? (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but doesn't that apply to genders in general? (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that all non-binary is to everyone? Gender roles? At least with transsexuals there is physical dysphoria. Shouldn't we be fighting gender roles? So, if a woman isn't a stereotype, she's nonbinary? Wouldn't it be much easier if we just went by sex, and not gender, if that's the case? It's counterproductive. What's wrong with, "If you have a penis, you're male, and if you have a vagina, you're female, and if you have any dysphoria about this, you're trans"? Trans is completely legitimate, but non-binary? Why can't people express themselves any way they choose, without all of this BS? By the way, I've always felt similar to non-binary, though it's difficult to explain. I HATE gender roles though. I see identity (the way I recognize myself and my body) as different from roles and preferences. I'm very egalitarian, and I know that there are butches and tomboys and women who just aren't stereotypes, though still cis. What is non-binary? Explain it in a way that is separate from social roles. My identity is Other and I use the "they" pronoun. It just feels right. But I don't want to be setting things back for men and women and equality. I don't want to escape from my biological sex, when I could be truly trying to make the world better by championing freedom. I don't want to distance myself if I could be representing my biological sex through my achievements. And yet there is a weird feeling about my identity. It's like I know I am Other-gendered, regardless of roles or the toys I played with growing up or whatever BS that shouldn't exist in the 21st century. Is there any proof to back this up, that someone could truly be Other, without conflating it with roles and other nonsense? (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You're non-binary if you self-identify as non-binary. As I've said on this talk page, I've met amab (well, I'm presuming they were amab, they're cis-passing) people who present as ordinary, gender-conforming men but privately have told me that they are non-binary, so despite all the cultural baggage surrounding gender roles and non-binary identity, I think they are two different things. As the article says, it is completely possible that non-binary people have an intersex condition of the brain. I wish I could offer you more insight, but I'm cisgender, so...(shrug). By the way, its possible to be transsexual without dysphoria. Shit's complicated. Asarelah (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-binary person here who can perhaps clear some of it up for you? Maybe? You're using trans and non-binary as if they are completely different, mutually exclusive, things, and they aren't. Plenty of non-binary folks, myself included, identify as trans, it's just that in general trans is shorthand for "transgender person with a binary gender". As for the meat of your comment, social roles can F off (can I swear here?), but for those of us with dysphoria, they make little difference outside social expectations (there's much more to gender presentation and how society reads you, but that's not really relevant currently). How long my hair is, what I wear, which toys I played with, whether I cook or repair things or whatever gender roles are currently, is moot to having various secondary sex characteristics that just plain do not feel like part of me, while not feeling like the opposite gender is something I want to transition to. Discovering that I didn't actually have to "pick one", as it were, was quite relieving really -- no more "I want X surgery, but not to transition to [opposite gender]", just "ok, I'm non-binary, and that's fine". Lol, I kinda wish it was gender roles, a haircut and new clothing is hella cheaper than surgery! Argenti Aertheri (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
If you have no problem with your primary sex characteristics, especially your external genitals, why surgery? It doesn't really do anything about secondary sex characteristics, which are what you feel dysphoria about. (I assume you mean genital reconstruction surgery here.) If you are AMAB and have dysphoria about your facial hair, laser it (fair, it's expensive too, but less so than GRS, and more spaced out). If you are dysphoric about your voice, train it. If you can handle effects like loss or reduction of fertility (AMABs can bank sperm, and AFABs eggs beforehand, though pregnancy for trans men is still often possible as long as they retain the "equipment"), consider trying hormones. They're comparably cheap and effective at modifying a lot of things about your body over a period of a few years (so it won't be too radical, because you and other people can get used to the changes gradually), and can have beneficial mental effects too. Though there are secondary sex characteristics that hormones can't do much about, like breasts in AFABs and various effects of long exposure to testosterone in AMABs, especially with regard to skeletal structure, or hair, admittedly (specialised surgeries can help, but are expensive too). There are all kinds of options to consider – even binary trans people pick and choose according to their individual needs, and non-binary people who physically transition in some way tend to need even fewer measures. (Even for GRS, there are more options now beside traditional, full vaginoplasty or phalloplasty.) It's always a trade-off, but for those who find themselves desiring some degree of modification of their bodies, it can be extremely beneficial. It's admittedly still radical even without GRS (and in fact, changes to secondary sex characteristics are often even more radical because they tend to be more obvious in daily life), and there are numerous risks involved, especially social, but if you're already strongly gender-nonconforming, you might actually blend in better afterwards. I'm just saying that "full transition with GRS" and "no physical transition at all" aren't the only options. Especially if you're still young, it's better to start earlier than later, so I'd look into hormones and lose no time trying them (preferrably under medical supervision with informed consent, not DIY). Low-dosage hormones are an option to test the water; even with higher dosages, the effects happen slowly enough that you can still stop the hormones after a couple of weeks or months and have no irreversible changes. They're not addictive or anything, it's just when you like the effects, you'll want to continue. And you can stop anytime if you've had enough (this can happen especially for transmasculine people who may prefer having a deep voice and a beard but don't want to stay on testosterone indefinitely). -- (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Biological sex is not gender identity[edit]

You need big, blinking boldface banners at the top of the page and talk page that say that, probably. Might help.--Mr. Democritus (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are my edits being undone?[edit]

I'm trying to improve the tone of the article and decouple its over-reliance on transgenderism, as well as the last section on special snowflakes and attention whores, which is irrelevant to the scope of the article. Can the users who keep undoing my edits please explain?

I was the first to undo your edit, and I'm gonna be completely honest, it was reactionary. I saw missing bytes and "Snowflake and attention whores", I figured it was vandalism, but after looking at it I un-undid it. I agree it doesn't fit with the page and it'd be much better suited to the talk page. - Shouniaisha (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm honestly trying to improve the article. As nobody knows the actual state of non-binary and whether its actually justifiable or a manifestation of something untreated, I think its important to maintain neutrality on the subject, to present both sides and to decouple it from the trans umbrella, as its really an unrelated issue, and globbing them together is less than ideal. - Elder Reaper (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Rationalwiki has no incentive to be neutral. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So, we should be all out SJW then? Really? That last bit just makes the rest of the article look worse. It should be on the talk page. Not the article. We should be more neutral with this issue based on the fact there is no scientific backing. I mean isn't that the point of the wiki? To get rid of crank and pseudoscience?-Elder Reaper (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Complains about neutrality being lacked in the article, makes a very non-neutral statement about articles content" isn't how you will ever get anybody to listen to you, for future reference.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I get where you're coming from. I'll find some other way that is 'acceptable' to deal with that last section. I'm not a right-winger however, don't take my use of the SJW tag that seriously. I'm more referring to how other people will perceive the professionality of the article. - Elder Reaper (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I do agree with Elder Reaper here. The section on attention whore and special snowflakes is poorly written; more like a rant than something worthy of an article. Gooniepunk (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added an edit that makes the part more constructive and less rant-like. Hopefully this is more acceptable. - Elder Reaper (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Straight/Heterosexual Non-binaries[edit]

I'm straight/heterosexual, and perhaps non-binary. Straight/heterosexual, meaning, I don't want a partner with the same "sex parts" as I have. I don't have an attraction to other non-binaries, either. I like cis-males. I've been told this makes me transphobic, though you can't choose who you're attracted to, and I really don't have a problem with trans folks. I'm just not attracted to trans folks or NBs. I acknowledge their gender, and I'm just not attracted to them, in the same way as someone can be attracted to men but that doesn't have to mean ALL types of men. That's how my attraction is. And also, my partner is heterosexual as well, because my gender is different from his own as well as our "sex parts" being different from each other.

Does being straight invalidate the whole non-binary thing? Am I not NB because I'm heterosexual -- attracted to cishets? I just hate the association with LGBT, considering that I'm NOT LGBT. And I hate how not following "femininity" has associations with lesbianism. Anyone should be able to dress and express themselves any way they like, and have any interests they enjoy, mannerisms, and so on and so forth, and this doesn't necessarily have to have ANYTHING to do with one's sexuality, and even gender. You know, you can be straight and cis and not follow "femininity." You can be straight and cis and look completely "butch" if you want.

All of this LGBT stuff feels oppressive to me, in a way. I just want to be myself without having to think about gender at all. While I can see how all of this stuff about gender and sexuality is liberating to many, and I don't want to take anything away from those folks, I feel as though this has great potential to be harmful to cis people, heterosexual people, and non-binary straight people who just want to be themselves without worrying about gender. Also, I'm Autistic and I don't follow gender and gender roles for that reason as well. I HATE it and I'd rather kill myself than follow those stereotypes, though that doesn't make me any less straight. I just want to be gender-neutral and focus on becoming a scientist.

The idea that "gender roles" are innate is extremely harmful and oppressive. Women can do and be ANYTHING, and that doesn't make them non-binary, and that doesn't make them a lesbian. Straight, cis women can do and be ANYTHING. Straight non-binaries can exist, as well. Not all non-binaries have to be in same sex and same gender relationships, or be bisexual or pansexual or asexual, do they? Why can't they be straight/heterosexual? And there's no such thing as "gender expression," necessarily, is there? Can't a straight, cis guy enjoy dressing any way he wants, whether in a pink tutu or suit and tie? Maybe he just LIKES it. Can't you see how these labels can be harmful? I also see how they can be helpful, as well. This stuff really needs to be sorted out though, so folks can just be themselves and NO ONE is oppressed, including cishets who express themselves in different ways, and non-binary straight people/heterosexuals. Bumpy Toad (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The only person who can determine whether or not you are non-binary is YOU. Nobody else. Wearing women's clothing doesn't make a someone who identifies as male a non-binary. That merely makes him non-gender conforming. Furthermore, you don't need to be non-straight to be non-binary. I know a person who lives his life as a gender-conforming cishet man who privately identifies as non-binary but doesn't feel any need to not present as masculine. If you like to wear women's clothing and do other things that considered non-gender conforming that doesn't make you any less of a male if you identify as a male. You are whatever gender that you identify as. If you identify as male and want be feminine, you are still a male. Period. If you identify as non-binary, you have every right to do so, because gender identity and orientation are two different things. You can still be straight and be non-binary. Asarelah (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out by Asarelah multiple times on this talk page, someone who comes across like a perfectly ordinary, gender-conforming cis man can still be a (probably closeted) non-binary person or even binary trans woman. Someone who comes across like a non-conforming cis man can also have a non-binary or even female identity (quite a lot of non-binary and even binary trans people are read as non-conforming cis men). The person could also be a trans man. Not all trans people transition, or have already transitioned completely, and there's no particular way to "look non-binary" or "look trans". When you say that you are only attracted to cis men and never to non-binary or trans people, how do you know that you haven't "accidentally" experienced attraction to (possibly multiple) non-binary or trans people who merely looked like cis men to you? Are you somehow able to magically, telepathically "see" other people's variant gender identities, even if they conceal them? That would be, um, a quite unique skill. More likely, however, you harbour prejudices about what non-binary and trans people look and behave like, which is indicative of transphobic bias. That's the fallacy when people say they would never be attracted to a trans person ... they assume they have some superhuman ability to pick out the transes, and that the toupée fallacy isn't a thing. Maybe examine your internalised transphobia ... and while you're at it, learn the difference between gender identity and gender norms. Yes, cis women and cis men can do anything, but so can trans women, trans men and non-binary folks. It doesn't change that they aren't cis. Being non-binary or trans isn't the same as "not conforming to gender norms". -- (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You're not transphobic for not being attracted to trans people anymore than you're sexist for not being attracted to women or I'm sexist for not being attracted to men. Christopher (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Cis women and especially cis men are not exactly marginalised and vilified minorities, so the analogy makes no sense. Also, in reality, attraction has a tendency to be random and unexpected. People have preferences, but there are also at least occasional exceptions, including in gender, even if they are not admitted to. Humans are notoriously complicated after all, and sexuality is more fluid than people realise. -- (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
You can still be bigoted against groups of people that aren't often discriminated against and women are still discriminated against. I'm sure there are exceptions but I was talking generally. Christopher (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Cis women, as a group, however, are not considered inferior sex partners, weirdos, ugly, "unfuckable", pathetic, deceptive, predators, perverted, unsound of mind etc., however, the way trans people are, especially trans women and transfeminine people. There are similar prejudices against nonbinaries and other minority groups that just don't exist towards either cis women or cis men. (Also, we're probably mainly talking about the West here, where it's not considered acceptable to openly discriminate against women anymore, not Saudi Arabia or some African country.) So, a "preference" that just so happens to consist of the blanket exclusion of an actual minority (cis women aren't exactly a minority, which is why the phrasing "women and minorities" is commonly found) that society already hates or is suspicious about, or alternatively fetishises (this also happens with ethnic minorities, for example), is a hell of a lot less believable as a genuine, innocent, innate (not learned) personality trait independent of prejudice (especially given that it usually turns out that people who exclude a minority as sexual partners actually harbour strong prejudices against that minority) than a gender-based preference. I have yet to meet a cis man who claims to have absolutely no attraction to any trans woman ever and does not believe things like that (all or almost all) trans women are ugly or look like men (and are therefore easy to spot), have penises or visually unconvincing (or otherwise unsatisfactory) genitals, are predatory and aggressive, somehow unfeminine, mentally unstable, not really women, etc. (Also, significantly, in many cases it turns out that a particularly vigorously trans-exclusionary or transmisogynist person – not always a heterosexual man – secretly does lust after trans women after all, or has other issues.) While gay men can be misogynist, even intensely so, I know of no evidence that any gay man excludes women (including trans women, by the way) as partners because he hates women or is prejudiced against them. In fact, countless heterosexual men experience no cognitive dissonance between hating or looking down on women and choosing them as sexual partners (or at least lusting after them). -- (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting term.[edit]

I noticed the word "exorsexist/exorsexism" in the article towards the end, meaning the "erasure of non-binary genders". I like this word. It's a lot more professional-sounding than what I used to use: "the 'hurr durr only 2 jindurrz' crowd". TheMyon (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Well there are only to biological sex though.Doublethink (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
How so? Of what species? What are your hard-line criteria? Do the individuals who meet your hardline criteria meet other reasonable hardline criteria? Why or why not? What predictions does your criteria provide about individuals? What scientific utility do those predictions provide? These aren't idle questions. None of them are ones you should skip answering. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Chromosomes determine biological sex. There are two types of chromosomes X and Y Boys have X/Y and girls have X/X. This determines biological sex, (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is very much a reason why I asked you to skip answering none of the questions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
For humans, my hard line criteria for being a boy of a girl is having the correct chromosomes. Biological sex in science is determined though chromosomes. This allows us to differentiate between transitioned transgender people girls, and boys,.Doublethink (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
No really. Do individuals who meet your hardline criteria meet other "hardline" criteria? For example, with your criteria, people with swyer syndrome are born with a vagina but xy chromosomes. As do people with androgen insensitivity. Would you deem people who have been treated as girls their whole lives by have xy karyotyping "beneath the hood" trans? What scientific utility is "differentiating transgender people"? Like... these aren't idle hypothetical questions. These are questions about what you're trying to get at with having a "biological concept of sex". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that Doublethink (living up to their name, apparently) completely fails at understanding gender, chromosomes, or the existence of various intersex people (the Klinefelter variants of XXY & XYY come to mind). Apologies for not using my (old, underused) username; new home, new computer, haven't sorted everything out yet. (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sigh, not another easily refuted "chromosomes determine sex" ignorant canard. I want to see how Doublethink responds. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually according to these people intersex isn't a gender and the INSA states that it is similar to a disorder. Also the World Health Orgnization states chromosomes determine gender. (Full disclosure, I am doublethink, I changed my account so I could have a better name) Commie Lib (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
WHO isn't supporting your claim. First, you're confusing between sex and gender. Second, the paragraph says the following:

Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.

You are presenting only part of the picture, actually read the sources you're trotting out. This also applies to your other links, which aren't exactly supporting your assertions. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The perfect introduction to non-binary gender/sex[edit]

I'm shocked that such a level-headed assessment even existed on YouTube! I don't mean to oversell it, but if you only watch one video on non-binary gender/sex in your life, make it this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


Do these people believe that their BIOLOGICAL sex isn't male or female or that they just have a differing gender expression?Doublethink (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Truscum nonsense[edit]

@Jaydogg1994 That revert you did on me was filled with truscum nonsense. Think before you carte blanche revert. Oxyaena Harass 22:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Man this talk page is a shitshow lmao - anyone who thinks nonbinary people are enby for "attention" should have a read of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey 2015. ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 07:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The recurring edit war[edit]

@Jaydogg1994@Oxyaena 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 Causes of transsexualismWikipedia), 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

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?" (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. (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. (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. (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". (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. (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. (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. (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) (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". Spriggina (parolo) (kontribuoj) @ 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)@Oxyaenal 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)

A little thought[edit]

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)