Gender Neutral Fashion is failing skirt-wearing boys

[rivegauche]

The other problem is that people don't understand the concept of binary. I can never mean that it applies with only a few exceptions. With binary, there are no exceptions - there are ONLY ever two options. That is manifestly not the case with sex, where the variations have already been mentioned, and there is a whole range of gender options. So people with traditional views about sex and gender should stop using terms they don't understand.

[Stu]

Well that settles that... the gender guru has spoken!

We can all go home now, someone hit the lights on the way out.

There is also no such thing as the color blue.

There is such a thing as the colour blue.

There is no such thing as non-binary.

Sex is either male or female. That's all.

Gender, i.e. in terms of masculinity and femininity, are human dispositions that exist along a gradient between extremes of hyper-masculinity and hyper-femininity. To a large extent - but certainly not 100% - they have logical alignments with biological sex. This is why we have masculine occupations that involve physical strength, courage and resilience and feminine occupations that necessitate caring, especially for children. Of course there are exceptions, so I am speaking very generally. However, as it is a gradient rather than the fashionable idea of a triadic (man, woman. non-binary), a masculine woman is just that - a woman with masculine traits and a feminine man is correspondingly just that - a male with feminine traits.

The rejection of norms associated with either sex or gender is essentially ideological: it has no basis in concrete facts beyond that. So if a man wants to wear lipstick or stiletto heels, he is choosing to follow behaviours that are culturally considered feminine (and these may have some biological cause), but he is still a man.

No - I am not a gender guru. I am just someone capable of thinking for myself and I don't automatically buy in to fashionable ideas like the current ideas on gender.

[Stu]

That's the word I was looking for last night when I was writing my point. You wouldn't tell a person whose intersex they don't exist so why is he stating non-binary people don't?

People exist, regardless of what labels they attach to the selves.

Intersex is a concrete reality; it is biological. One either is or is not intersex and that can be established or confirmed scientifically.

Non-binary is not a concrete reality. It is motivated by desire and/or uncertainty and/or confusion about one's sex or gender. It is a state of mind - nothing more.

[pelmut]

There is no such thing as non-binary.

Sex is either male or female. That's all.

This has already been thrashed out and explained ad nauseam yet you keep coming back and re-asserting the same incorrect nonsense time after time. It is becoming tedious.

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that dividing a continuous spectrum into two artificial divisions is not proof that the spectrum does not exist?  In which case you do not learn easily

Do you understand it at the time we explain it to you -- and then forget?  In which case you have a short memory.

Are you determined to be seen as a bigot who asserts a creed irrespective of reason and facts?  In which case you are asking to be subject to ridicule

If none of these, then it appears you are simply doing it annoy people, which is very unfriendly and a waste of everyone's time.

[Jim]

Non-binary is not a concrete reality. It is motivated by desire and/or uncertainty and/or confusion about one's sex or gender. It is a state of mind - nothing more.

But isn't a state of mind real? You can argue whether it is a choice or delusion, but it is still real.

[Stu]

But isn't a state of mind real? You can argue whether it is a choice or delusion, but it is still real.

A delusion is real to the person experiencing it - but others not experiencing it don't have to accept its concrete reality, Jim.

[pelmut]

[...]
There is also no such thing as the color blue.

Actually it would be easier to argue that there is no such thing as the colour green.

If you arbitrarily divide the colour spectrum into two, red is one end and blue is the other -- so you can argue (like Stu) that the colours in between don't exist. You can 'prove' that everything is either red or blue if you call every colour "red" or "blue" and refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other colour.

If people have been getting it wrong for years, that must be far stronger proof that you are right than any of these inconvenient scientific ideas that require actual thinking, or actual facts that can be easily ignored or waved aside.

[Ray]

There is no such thing as non-binary.

Sex is either male or female. That's all.

This has already been thrashed out and explained ad nauseam yet you keep coming back and re-asserting the same incorrect nonsense time after time. It is becoming tedious.

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that dividing a continuous spectrum into two artificial divisions is not proof that the spectrum does not exist?  In which case you do not learn easily

Do you understand it at the time we explain it to you -- and then forget?  In which case you have a short memory.

Are you determined to be seen as a bigot who asserts a creed irrespective of reason and facts?  In which case you are asking to be subject to ridicule

If none of these, then it appears you are simply doing it annoy people, which is very unfriendly and a waste of everyone's time.

Stu,

While the evidence suggests you’re not really capable of engaging in any form of discourse that deviates from your particular world view, I’m going to give you a bit of advice.

Stating things bluntly (presenting as fact) without some modifier (such as “in my view” or “the evidence supports”) just makes you look like a complete @rse; unfortunately you then double down on this with your own views which you then attempt to present as fact. I’m not sure this perception fits the reality.

I’d try another tack. You’re in here with some serious brains. Show them respect. Several are likely to have rather more intellectual firepower than you, and frequently express views that are likely* to carry equal or greater weight. I’d suggest you remember that before swatting aside a reasoned counterpoint. You make some good comments. This just in: so do others.

You might even bring some people round to your view if you show some humility in your exchanges of views. However, stating - and defending - views in the way you do does quite the opposite.

Ray

* an example of using language to soften a statement. Isn’t language wonderful?

[MrSoapsud]

Bear in mind that when Stu says "However, for everyday clothing, maybe it's not a bad idea to maintain certain external appearances that are unequivocally boy or girl, especially when it comes to older children." this will be partly because he like to impose his choice of pronouns on people, based on his assessment of their appearance, and regardless of any preference the person may have expressed.

[Stu]

Stu,

Stating things bluntly (presenting as fact) without some modifier (such as “in my view” or “the evidence supports”) just makes you look like a complete @rse; unfortunately you then double down on this with your own views which you then attempt to present as fact. I’m not sure this perception fits the reality.

Ray,

I don't want to appear ungrateful, but you know what you can do with your "advice".

Sometimes, things need to be said that others don't want to read or hear. Facts that hurt feelings or fashionable ideologies that others have bought into are still facts. Deep down, those disputing these facts know they are the truth, but will fight tooth and nail to silence those who reveal them. The UK government recently rejected any claim that there is any category of person who is "non-binary" - and the High Court disallowed a challenge on that, so I have the government and courts on my side. There is not a shred of scientific or biological evidence to support the claim for such a category, so I guess science is on my side. And this whole notion was completely unheard of until very recently in human history and is still not recognised in most societies. When discussing it, nobody has supplied a shred of solid evidence that this phenomenon is anything other than a mindset or ideology. But somehow we are all supposed to blithely accept its reality because that's what a certain sector insists upon.

So if someone presents me with a claim that some people are non-binary, I am entitled to challenge the truth of that statement. That person, you, and anyone else, is free to disagree. Unlike you, though, I haven't attacked anyone personally for disagreeing with my view because I am a grown up.

[Stu]

Bear in mind that when Stu says "However, for everyday clothing, maybe it's not a bad idea to maintain certain external appearances that are unequivocally boy or girl, especially when it comes to older children."

Yes - read that again - it was framed as a suggestion. The clue is in "maybe it's not a bad idea..."

As for pronouns, my point on that is that pronouns are not words over which people can insist upon some proprietary interest, as is the case with personal names. As such, I am not "imposing" pronouns on anyone - I couldn't do that even if I wanted because they are a property of the grammar, just like prepositions, determiners and conjunctions. The choice of which third person personal, possessive and reflexive third person pronouns in an utterance or text is always the prerogative of a speaker and not a referent.

[Stu]

Are you incapable of understanding the simple fact that dividing a continuous spectrum into two artificial divisions is not proof that the spectrum does not exist?  In which case you do not learn easily

Do you understand it at the time we explain it to you -- and then forget?  In which case you have a short memory.

Are you determined to be seen as a bigot who asserts a creed irrespective of reason and facts?  In which case you are asking to be subject to ridicule

If none of these, then it appears you are simply doing it annoy people, which is very unfriendly and a waste of everyone's time.

The fact that you keep repeating an untruth doesn't make it a truth (unless you happen to agree with Dr Goebells). I am more than happy to show the science to prove there are two, and only two, biological sexes. The facts are not on your side which is why you can't back up your claim. Accusing someone of bigotry because they present facts that conflict with your personal ideology is anti-science, anti-intellectual and rather asinine.

[Ray]

Stu,

I am entirely unsurprised by your response, especially the first line. You’re nothing if not consistent.

You appear not to have taken my advice on board. That’s your right. It’s also consistent with your mindset.

For the record, I’m not denying that this is a mindset or indeed ideology. These characteristics don’t deny their existence. Therefore I believe that people can be non-binary in their gender (I make no such claim for sex). It doesn’t take a government to validate this, nor science, so claiming that both are on your side is classic Stu-centric thinking.

Let’s move on. I’ll enjoy sharing views with others on this forum. There’s no point with you.

[Stu]

Ray,

I am allowed to express a view if someone says something with which I disagree and that's all I have done. You seem to be upset because I don't buy into something I regard as based on delusion that you consider as beyond argument.

We are here to discuss men wearing skirts etc which I regard as primarily a sartorial matter. I am happy to agree to disagree on this and move on. How about you?

[pelmut]

I am more than happy to show the science to prove there are two, and only two, biological sexes.

You must have had to search back before Watson and Crick in the early 1950s to find it (possibly to pre-Darwinian times). I can also find 'science' to prove the phlogiston theory and 'science' based on the elements of Air, Earth, Fire and Water, but biology, physics and chemistry have long-since abandoned those theories in favour of ones that explain the facts better.