Why gender dysphoria is entirely social on it's origins.

[Rynn]

2 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

I see the binary as a light spectrum. One end is Male and the other Female. Fluid slides around back and forth, Trans goes from one end to the other permanently, Neutrals are encompass the entire spectrum like a circle, and Agenders exist off the spectrum. 

That's an interesting way of visualizing it too  

 

My picture was actually only meant to represent gender identity though, not transition, gender expression or agab. So a trans woman would be on the female end her whole life, because that's her gender identity.

 

5 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

I see where my issue is though. You're the first person who didn't present Nonbinary as it's own identity AND an umbrella. From what I can understand, you see Nonbinary as only the umbrella that holds all what i call Gender Queers, which is just anything non-cis honestly.

I think that's right. I do think of nonbinary as just an umbrella term. Of course I think individual people can still identify as nonbinary and something else 'below' that, like nonbinary ánd neutrois (or like me, nonbinary ánd agender). So 'nonbinary' can still be an identity, just like 'person of color' can be an identity that doesn't prevent someone from also identifying as 'black.'

 

And I also don't want to tell anyone who identifies as just 'nonbinary not further specified' that they are wrong about their identity. If they don't feel the need to look for a more specific label, then nonbinary seems like a good word for them.

 

I think our issue actually lies here:

18 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

Trans is solely MtF/FtM. And yeah, they're the same thing just in different directions.

I don't think you mean to say that being mtf and being ftm are literally the same thing. I think you mean to say that you see them as equivalent, and you don't think being nonbinary is equivalent to being ftm or mtf, am I correct?

 

Now please tell me if I'm wrong, but people who don't want nonbinary people to say they are transgender often hold that belief because they think being nonbinary is by definition easier than being binary transgender, and that it is disrespectful and appropriative for nonbinary people to claim the word 'transgender' for themselves too. Is that your opinion as well?

[Emery.]

I probably have the HBS, but it doesn’t mean I’ll go and throw someone else under the bus. I mean, I used to be convinced as a kid that I was born a boy and they cut my balls off. I’m also more masculine than my most of male friends and classmates. I have a clearly male mind. I made others question if I really am female many times before coming out. And not because I looked in any way like a guy, I didn’t. For me this mind-body contradiction is the reason to transition, because it’s just goddamn difficult to live with this contradiction. I want to at least minimise it. 

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

6 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

The BINARY is a BINARY not a SPECTRUM. It. Is. Different.

2 things. 1: How can you say that gender isn't a spectrum but also say that the body doesn't dictate your gender?  2: The existence of a Binary always implies a spectrum. If you have a Binary Solar System, there is a space between the two suns, which is the spectrum. "I am closer to Sun 1 and not Sun 2." "I am exactly between the 2 suns."

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

5 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I don't think you mean to say that being mtf and being ftm are literally the same thing. I think you mean to say that you see them as equivalent, and you don't think being nonbinary is equivalent to being ftm or mtf, am I correct?

Yes. They are equivalent. Trans is very particular just like how Agender is very particular. I didn't accept Nonbinary as Trans before because I saw them both as singular identities that shouldn't overlap because they seemed like contradictions, to me. But seeming Nonbinary as an umbrella, I'm more lenient.

[Rynn]

7 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

The existence of a Binary always implies a spectrum.

Hmm, while I believe that this is a misunderstanding and you two probably agree that gender is a spectrum (thought society may present it as a binary), this sentence is not true.

A binary system explicitly is not a spectrum. It is the opposite of a spectrum. In a computer system, you have 1s and 0s, not 2s and 0.5s. The existence of that binary does not imply a spectrum.

 

In the case of the solar system, the word isn't used to refer to a system, it just means there are two suns.

 

Also, on a modly note, please remain civil everyone.

Laurann, moderator

 

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

11 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Is that your opinion as well?

No, I saw them different in the way that Bi and Homo were different. Slight overlap but not enough to claim both sides.

[Rynn]

1 minute ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

I didn't accept Nonbinary as Trans before because I saw them both as singular identities that shouldn't overlap because they seemed like contradictions, to me. But seeming Nonbinary as an umbrella, I'm more lenient.

Ah, okay, that makes sense. So do you still think transgender has to be a singular identity (or well, I guess there'd be two, mtf and ftm), or do you think it can be an umbrella identity that encompasses both binary and nonbinary individuals?

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

3 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Hmm, while I believe that this is a misunderstanding and you two probably agree that gender is a spectrum (thought society may present it as a binary), this sentence is not true.

A binary system explicitly is not a spectrum. It is the opposite of a spectrum. In a computer system, you have 1s and 0s, not 2s and 0.5s. The existence of that binary does not imply a spectrum.

Thank you, you helped me realize how I was wrong. A binary does not imply a spectrum but a spectrum implies a binary because they must be 2 ends.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

3 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Ah, okay, that makes sense. So do you still think transgender has to be a singular identity (or well, I guess there'd be two, mtf and ftm), or do you think it can be an umbrella identity that encompasses both binary and nonbinary individuals?

Singular, simply because it's a very specific identity.

[Rynn]

7 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

Singular, simply because it's a very specific identity.

But wouldn't mtf and ftm already be the very specific identities, leaving 'transgender' open to be an umbrella?

 

8 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

A binary does not imply a spectrum but a spectrum implies a binary because they must be 2 ends.

The color spectrum has more than two ends. Spectra can be more than one-dimensional (a line would be one-dimensional, a square two, a cube three, etc).

Spoiler

 

The gender spectrum has a bimodal distribution, which is why most people tend to think of it as a binary. So if you want to say that it's therefore one-dimensional, well nobody is going to stop you from thinking of it like that.

Spoiler

 

In my visualization of it, the gender spectrum is more of a square than a line, but other people will add like five or more dimensions to that spectrum. It's hard to visualize something as subjective and individual as gender. I don't think there's a correct way to do it.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

4 minutes ago, Laurann said:

In my visualization of it, the gender spectrum is more of a square than a line, but other people will add like five or more dimensions to that spectrum. It's hard to visualize something as subjective and individual as gender. I don't think there's a correct way to do it.

Fair point but I see it as a line because I think of gender as colours. That picture you have shown did make it look 3 dimensional since it wrapped back around but that's the reason I view it as a line, the red repeated on both ends but that doesn't really make sense if you're trying to name all the colours because then there'd be 2 reds, you know? Do you think people would be more inclined to agree with me if I presented it not as boy on one end and girl on the other but as masculine on one and feminine on the other and everything in between? 

[Rynn]

1 minute ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

That picture you have shown did make it look 3 dimensional since it wrapped back around but that's the reason I view it as a line, the red repeated on both ends but that doesn't really make sense if you're trying to name all the colours because then there'd be 2 reds, you know?

Hmm that's not really what I meant to show with that picture. The pictured I showed may not have been chosen well. I meant more like you've got the dimension that tells you about hue (red blue green), and then you've got the dimension that tells you about saturation (going towards black or white).

 

In the same vein, in my opinion you've got one dimension for how much you identify with male-ness, and one dimension for how much you identify with female-ness, so two-dimensional, so a square.

Spoiler

It wouldn't really make sense to me to put agender in the same place as bigender (in the middle of a line between man and woman), because those experiences are opposite to each other.

 

Also, forgot to mention, when I say that I think 'transgender' should be an umbrella term, my definition of transgender is 'someone who does not fully identify with the gender they were assigned at birth,' not 'someone who is mtf or ftm.' It's a common definition, but of course it isn't the only one or The Official Definition (because such a thing does not exist).

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

2 minutes ago, Laurann said:

The Official Definition (because such a thing does not exist).

There should be, you know? There should be a legit Community Headquarters with a council to represent each Orientation and Identity. It'd help plan pride events and they'd be in charge of hate crime cases and absolve definition debates, you know? Oh, to be in a perfect world.

[Rynn]

Just now, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

There should be a legit Community Headquarters with a council to represent each Orientation and Identity.

Haha that sounds absolutely awful to me XD. Imagine the infighting and the 'you're not blabla enough to be here' fingerpointing! It's bad enough when it happens in informal settings, but if this is institutionalized and has real life consequences, dang, now there's something that'll lead to enormous amounts of heartbreak and suffering.

 

I think it's much better to let people learn in their own time, and be true to themselves, describing their experiences and changing aspects about themselves as they see fit, rather than letting a council decide what people of their label 'should' be like.

 

If you start forcing people to prove they are similar enough to you to join your club, they will start faking their feelings, and change themselves to fit in. They won't be able to be honest about their doubts, and won't be able to get support for them. It sounds like a very lonely existence.

 

If people accidentally pick a label that isn't right, they'll find out at some point. Having a council tell them they are wrong will only cause them to dig their heels in and start trying to prove they are right, changing aspects of themselves not because they want to, but because otherwise they won't be accepted. That's where you get regret.

 

Just imagine how much fighting asexuality would have to do to be let in to this council thing, and then to be told the council has decided they can't have a pride event because they're not a real orientation. Oof. Ouch. No thanks. Decentralized organization all the way.

[anisotrophic]

3 hours ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

Since you're Nonbinary, I can only assume you're transitioning to a more androgynous form, right?

Who knows? It’s a journey.

 

I’m currently on “full dose” T and targeting cis male levels, 8 months in now.
 

My hair is past my waist. I don’t have any interest in top surgery at this point.

 

If you think androgynous means no secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and beard, that’s probably not accurate.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

4 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Haha that sounds absolutely awful to me XD. Imagine the infighting and the 'you're not blabla enough to be here' fingerpointing! It's bad enough when it happens in informal settings, but if this is institutionalized and has real life consequences, dang, now there's something that'll lead to enormous amounts of heartbreak and suffering.

 

I think it's much better to let people learn in their own time, and be true to themselves, describing their experiences and changing aspects about themselves as they see fit, rather than letting a council decide what people of their label 'should' be like.

 

If you start forcing people to prove they are similar enough to you to join your club, they will start faking their feelings, and change themselves to fit in. They won't be able to be honest about their doubts, and won't be able to get support for them. It sounds like a very lonely existence.

 

If people accidentally pick a label that isn't right, they'll find out at some point. Having a council tell them they are wrong will only cause them to dig their heels in and start trying to prove they are right, changing aspects of themselves not because they want to, but because otherwise they won't be accepted. That's where you get regret.

 

Just imagine how much fighting asexuality would have to do to be let in to this council thing, and then to be told the council has decided they can't have a pride event because they're not a real orientation. Oof. Ouch. No thanks. Decentralized organization all the way.

No no no, the Council wouldn't dictate what people identify as, they'd just help clear up some of the confusion with definitions. They'll be all "Here, take these definitive definitions. Identify with what fits you most and if none do, here's this one that if enough people pick, we'll consider making a new terms to fit them by taking a big poll from all of them and make a happy medium." And regarding the infighting part: That's why I said a perfect world. There wouldn't be ANY infighting because they'd all be modest and of sound minds. Plus, wouldn't it be better if hate crimes were tried by people closer the victim rather than the attacker? It'd stop judicial discrimination. If only.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

9 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

If you think androgynous means no secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and beard, that’s probably not accurate.

Not sexual no. Just someone who's form looks neutral. Someone you'd look at and be all "Wait. Hmmm. What're they?"

[Rynn]

@WrenIsNotMyRealName!! Ah, in a perfect world where people are all angels and nobody would ever exclude anybody, okay.

 

The reason AVEN doesn't want to ever give a definitive definition of asexuality is because people are not angels, so I guess that's what I was basing my view off of.

 

In the Netherlands we've got a queer department of police (Pink in blue or something like that). Not sure how that's been holding up though. I don't think it ultimately made much of a difference.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

6 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Ah, in a perfect world where people are all angels and nobody would ever exclude anybody, okay

*sigh* It really makes no sense why I am specifically the way I am. Like, I can make myself completely unbiased on any issue. I don't crave power or anything like that. I don't WANT or NEED anything. But u don't understand why there isn't more people like me since the reason I'M like this us because I listened to what media, our parents, all those moral lessons that we grew up with. I saw the emotional attachments to people almost always fucks up things because they ignore the greater good and stuff so I didn't make emotional attachments.

[Rynn]

5 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

I can make myself completely unbiased on any issue.

I don't think there really is such a thing as being completely unbiased. Everyone is primed for certain beliefs, taking media literacy in uni made that abundantly clear to me (Crash course on media literacy on YT). We all live in a society and have experiences that lead to belief patterns, and we all have the completely human confirmation bias. I mean, even the words that exist in your language, versus the ones that don't but may exist in other languages, change the way you think about things.

 

7 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

But u don't understand why there isn't more people like me since the reason I'M like this us because I listened to what media, our parents, all those moral lessons that we grew up with.

I think a lot of people believe that their morality and their way of seeing things is the correct one, and they can't understand why other people think differently. Everyone listened to their parents, their media, their moral lessons they grew up with.

 

9 minutes ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

I saw the emotional attachments to people almost always fucks up things because they ignore the greater good and stuff so I didn't make emotional attachments.

I have a hard time believing you have no emotional attachments. There are people who have damage to the part of the brain where emotions are generated, and so they genuinely do not form emotional attachments. They can't make decisions anymore, even simple ones like what to eat for breakfast, because turns out decisions are based on what you value, and valuing things is based in emotion.

 

28 minutes ago, Laurann said:

Ah, in a perfect world where people are all angels and nobody would ever exclude anybody, okay.

You may not have meant to, but even in this very thread your words excluded nonbinary people from using the word 'transgender' for themselves. This can be very hurtful to nonbinary people. I think you yourself may still have work to do in this respect.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

2 hours ago, WrenIsNotMyRealName!! said:

2 things. 1: How can you say that gender isn't a spectrum but also say that the body doesn't dictate your gender?  2: The existence of a Binary always implies a spectrum. If you have a Binary Solar System, there is a space between the two suns, which is the spectrum. "I am closer to Sun 1 and not Sun 2." "I am exactly between the 2 suns."

I'm saying it because the gender binary is not a statement of fact, it is a social construct which excludes those who don't belong within it. Society is shaped around the exclusion of non binary people. Gender isn't even a spectrum in my opinion by the way, it's a social construct so in terms of identity you can literally have it be anything. There are no such limitations when it comes to something designed to encompass all of the possible ways in which a human could perceive and describe their gender identity. For example, I don't see genderqueer as lying on a spectrum between male and female, but in a different space, and agender similarly doesn't exist on there. Sometimes I'm fluid in terms of male/female, sometimes it's more of an agender/genderqueer feeling.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

27 minutes ago, Laurann said:

I don't think there really is such a thing as being completely unbiased. Everyone is primed for certain beliefs, taking media literacy in uni made that abundantly clear to me (Crash course on media literacy on YT). We all live in a society and have experiences that lead to belief patterns, and we all have the completely human confirmation bias.

No, I know that's how human's are built. But I swear this is the complete, unexaggerated truth, I can ignore it. I just don't listen and boom, now I'm unbiased in this area by ignoring the pieces in my brain that try to sway my thoughts.

 

29 minutes ago, Laurann said:

they can't understand why other people think differently.

No, I can do that for most things. See both views points. It's an essential skill that everybody should have. Of course there's some that I can't but its stuff like racism. Sometimes it's just how they were raised but the ones who genuinely feel that way make literally NO sense to me.

 

31 minutes ago, Laurann said:

because turns out decisions are based on what you value, and valuing things is based in emotion.

I don't value things. A lesson I learned early on is that what is detrimental. It makes it easier for people to trick you, by playing on your wants. And I don't value anything. I don't really care about anything I have. Take it away, I don't care. I'll just go one without it.

 

This is my point. I don't get why more people aren't like me because it wasn't hard at all to become like this.

[WrenIsNotMyRealName!!]

13 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

I'm saying it because the gender binary is not a statement of fact, it is a social construct which excludes those who don't belong within it. Society is shaped around the exclusion of non binary people. Gender isn't even a spectrum in my opinion by the way, it's a social construct so in terms of identity you can literally have it be anything. There are no such limitations when it comes to something designed to encompass all of the possible ways in which a human could perceive and describe their gender identity. For example, I don't see genderqueer as lying on a spectrum between male and female, but in a different space, and agender similarly doesn't exist on there. Sometimes I'm fluid in terms of male/female, sometimes it's more of an agender/genderqueer feeling.

You DO realize you're making the spectrum real by expressing yourself with gender, right? If gender itself isn't real then why are you using it? The fact that it shifts from day to day is literally proof that it's a spectrum.

[Janus the Fox]

5 hours ago, Laurann said:

In a computer system, you have 1s and 0s, not 2s and 0.5s. The existence of that binary does not imply a spectrum.

Quantum Computing would like a word

 

But yeah, I can't define Asexual Definitions, that is up to the individual.  There is no Binary in an identity to me, no matter what it is, same goes for my gender.

 

There's plenty of Spectrum debates going on in Sexuality, Romance and Gender across the forum recently, it's rather healthy to discuss the details, like and identity do.