|
This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately.
See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
|
|
|
|
Archives for this talk page:
,
(new)
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)
- @Rationalzombie94 Any particular point of the article you're stuck on? --Zoe Kirk (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Criticism section[edit]
|
Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!
|
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)
| BoN making trite bullshit arguments
|
- 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. --It's-a me,
 đLeftyGreenMario!đ 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. --It's-a me, đLeftyGreenMario!đ 01:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
|
Why I'm deleting the criticism section[edit]
- 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[edit]
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 âGod intendedâ. 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 âinventedâ the gender-binary but they were the most widespread and ruthless enforcers of it - mostly rationalized through narratives of âAdam & Eveâ and viewing âsodomyâ as signifying a culture as inherently âirrationalâ. 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)
Rational criticism[edit]
Some vandals (Cosmikdebris and Ioe bidome) remove rational criticism of non-binary gender. Please punish these editors as they didn't give the reason for deleting my edition. Probably they don't understand what RationalWiki should be and how it calls itself (RationalWiki (RW) is a community working together to explore and provide information about a range of topics centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking). You won't develop with such censors. Who needs this website if it's the same as Wikipedia? — Unsigned, by: Pawel.jamiolkowski / talk / contribs
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Plutocow (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Adding a criticism section to an article about non-binary gender makes about as much sense as adding a criticism section to an article "African-American" or "man"
- The "criticism" was just the opinions of one guy.
- Islam and non-binary are not comparable. One is a gender identity while the other is a religion that has been used to justify homophobia and transphobia.
- See RW:ENCY
Ioe bidome (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
