More than 1 million nonbinary adults live in the US, study finds

[HisGrace]

A decade ago you'd acting suprised that so many people identify as LGBT now compared to the past.

I think most everybody not living in the most square bubble knew there were tons of people in the closet.

How did we go from nobody being gay to millions? Why are autism diagnoses increasing? A more open and accepting society allows people to explore themselves and be open about their experiences.

Autism diagnoses are going up because Autism went from something that had clear criterion (not smiling/talking within x months, exc) to something extremely broad where the descriptions of it sound like a horoscope or internet personality test.

[HisGrace]

As others have said that like 0.3% of the public, which is about what I would have expected.

[HisGrace]

Is there really such a thing as a gender binary? I'm not convinced. What makes a person male or female?

Their chromosomes and genatalia.

No, he said gender.

I did, but still no one has answered. Obviously Dule's misgendering is uncouth, but all of this seems to be relative. Does playing with dolls make one effeminate? Does wanting to pursue a career in the military make one masculine?

We were starting to break those barriers in the past but I think the left has little interest in that anymore. The funny thing is that when I was growing up there was a big, and I'd argue positive, cultural push in society to recognize that being tomboy or sissy (purely for lack of a less rude word) had no bearing on the legitimacy of one's gender. This was reflected in a lot of the children's programming too. I remember there were little commercials on the Disney Channel when I was in elementary school where they'd profile boys that enjoyed volleyball or dancing and girls that liked reptiles or football. This always stuck out to me as a kid because I was never sporty or outdoorsy and was made to feel bad about it back then because boys weren't "supposed" to be the way I was. Now I feel like this wouldn't be encouraged, because it seems to go against the extremely rigid gender roles that are getting pushed these days.

Maybe getting a bit off the point of the thread, but I've brought up several times on here that I've yet to hear an example of a "brain sex" that isn't stereotypical and obviously socially constructed (i.e, playing with dolls or wanting to wear a dress). No one's ever corrected me and given better examples. Maybe someone could suggest more substantive things like women being more emotional or men having more spatial awareness, but even then I'm a bit dubious because there's not much actual evidence suggesting a biological cause for stuff like that. Not to mention that it flies in the face of everything feminists were saying just a couple years ago and you'd have been called a bigot for suggesting it. It causes problems in their rhetoric even now. Like, why are we calling men "toxic" for being unemotional if they're born that way? Wouldn't that be bigotry if it were the case?

Adults certainly have the right to get a sex or name change if they want to. The left's dialogue on this should really revolve around that instead of this incoherent ideology they appear to be making up as they go along.

[HisGrace]

Even if there was so contingent of people who aren't really trans (whatever that's supposed to mean), who cares. Just let people live their lives. Not sure why the continued maintenance of rigid gender roles is so important to so many people here

As I've said before, suggesting that how someone dresses and behaves determines that person's gender is actually what maintains rigid gender roles.

[HisGrace]

I do think it's likely that there are some people who a legitimately non-binary; i.e. they feel genuine gender dysphoria over identifying with either gender.

But I also get the impression that a significant number of people who now identify as nonbinary don't actually experience any dysphoria in the medical sense.

Rather, they are mostly just embracing an aesthetic that has become popular within a certain Gen-Z niche.  Somewhat like the kids who identified as "goths" back when I was in high school.

The debate over "transmedicalism" (believing that dysphoria is required to identify as transgender) is ancient and ugly, and best avoided. While it's possible for some cases, it's generally not considerate to jump to the assumption that people choose to identify as trans, and thus incur all of the associated risks, merely as an aesthetic statement.

But isn’t the medical basis for gender dysphoria the primary reason why identifying as transgender is seen as legitimate while identifying as transracial is not?

Diagnosable gender dysphoria is also the basis for the trans activist arguments for insurance companies covering reassignment surgery, and for requiring prisons to pay for surgery for trans inmates. Without any objective or diagnosable medical criteria, it is essentially no different from cosmetic surgery.

I've thought about this before, there are two distinct perspectives here that would make sense

1. Sex Change as Medical Procedure

From this perspective gender dysphoria would be treated as a mental disorder that could be treated with sex reassignment. That would require a diagnosis from a doctor or mental health professional. This would ensure a lot of things that trans activists are fighting about now (required health coverage, protection from discrimination, the right of minors to take puberty blockers and have a sex change).

2. Sex Change as Elective Procedure

In this case sex changes would just be an elective cosmetic surgery that adults could choose to have. However in this case transpeople would not really be considered a "class" of person so it would be a stretch to apply anti-discrimination laws to them. Also if it's a non-medically necessary elective surgery insurance wouldn't be required to cover it and you probably wouldn't let minors have it, at least not without the permission of their guardian.

The problem is the social justice left currently is treating this like a grab bag and free associating these two perspectives even though they directly contradict each other. Which is why their arguments are breaking down and confusing people. As I alluded to I think the first one gives them most of what they want.

[HisGrace]

Even if there was so contingent of people who aren't really trans (whatever that's supposed to mean), who cares. Just let people live their lives. Not sure why the continued maintenance of rigid gender roles is so important to so many people here

As I've said before, suggesting that how someone dresses and behaves determines that person's gender is actually what maintains rigid gender roles.

Good thing nobody says that?

Then what then does determine gender?

A man is someone who identifies as a man. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman

If that was all there was to it it would be an empty concept and there'd be no reason anyone would be upset about being misgendered.

Also it just drifts into nonsensical territory. For a concept to exist there has to be a manifestation of the concept. Even for imaginary things there is a definition of what it would be if it existed. Saying a man is someone who identifies as a man is circular reasoning and doesn't answer the question.

[HisGrace]

Even if there was so contingent of people who aren't really trans (whatever that's supposed to mean), who cares. Just let people live their lives. Not sure why the continued maintenance of rigid gender roles is so important to so many people here

As I've said before, suggesting that how someone dresses and behaves determines that person's gender is actually what maintains rigid gender roles.

Good thing nobody says that?

Then what then does determine gender?

A man is someone who identifies as a man. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman

If that was all there was to it it would be an empty concept and there'd be no reason anyone would be upset about being misgendered.

Also it just drifts into nonsensical territory. For a concept to exist there has to be a manifestation of the concept. Even for imaginary things there is a definition of what it would be if it existed. Saying a man is someone who identifies as a man is circular reasoning and doesn't answer the question.

Gender is an empty concept, correct, and it is nonsense. If everyone understood gender as it actually existed, it would not exist. Unfortunately, we've spent millennia building rigid definitions around them with no basis, and anything that is a threat to those rigid definitions is going to be hard for most people who grew up in such a society to accept

It's also not circular reasoning any more than it's circular reasoning to define Republican as someone who identifies with the Republican party

Well I think the more productive route would be to eliminate gender as a separate concept from sex and just let people live their lives as they please. I also question how much of a "threat" it is to traditional gender roles. It's easier for some people to say that effeminate men are "actually" women instead of acknowledging that effeminate men exist, hence the relative tolerance for it in places like Iran.

Even if there's not one agreed upon definition saying you're a Republican still has certain implications to it, much like there is implied essentialism in saying you "identify" as a man or a woman beyond what your body is. If a cis person tried to say he or she had a "brain sex" that person would likely be shouted down or even denounced as sexist. Being trans does not make the "brain sex" concept any less baseless.

None of this precludes transpeople from being able to get sex reassignment either. The focus should be on things pertaining to that (health coverage, discrimination) and not on trying shove post-modern psychobabble down everyone's throat, which is what is causing the current backlash.