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

[If my soul was made of stone]

I'm assuming that Alben's reason for sharing this is his assumption that it'll hurt the Democrats in 2022, by virtue of all matters of societal permissiveness being a bridge too far for simple close-minded working people who need to be culturally coddled.

I myself am non-binary, and I don't appreciate this treatment of my people.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Something I noticed is that it appears it's way more common for AFAB (that's assigned female at birth for those unaware) XX chromosomed individuals to identify as trans or non-binary, or not straight than it is for AMAB XY individuals to.

What's the deal with that?

If you only listen to mainstream anti-trans rhetoric, you'd hardly believe that trans men exist; right-wing transphobes only care about masculinity being abandoned, and TERFs only care about femininity being "appropriated" by those not born into it. Various studies have shown different relative prevalences of AFAB and AMAB GNC folk, but the former are definitely becoming more prominent after decades of the latter receiving far more attention.

[If my soul was made of stone]

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us/

apparently 58% of "nonbinary adults" are "cis" (19% cis men + 39% cis women)?  How does that work?

I assume that it means that they identify marginally more with their gender assigned at birth, as in demi-male or demi-female identities, or perhaps that they have chosen not to physically transition, although that's a poor choice of terminology as it's generally understood that one can't be both cis and non-binary.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Non-binary is a political identity.

Effortlessly moronic statement from an intellectual sadist.

You know it's true though.

Only insofar as gender non-conformity on the whole has been made political by its opponents trying to oppress and discredit it. However, given that living as my true self is inherently political, I try to embrace the radical aspect of it to spite people who think that we should assimilate and not make any noise.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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

I totally agree with this.  People should be able to look the way they want, dress the way they want, use whatever name they want, and accept or reject any "gender roles" that they want.

But if we are going to be accepting of an otherwise privileged person adopting a trans identity without experiencing dysphoria or discrimination or any of the other negative aspects of this transition that trans people has historical experienced, why are we so quick to condemn an otherwise privileged person who wishes to embrace some aspects of the identity of another race or culture?

If someone identifies affirmatively as trans and makes it known, then they're bound to experience discrimination at some point. This thread is conclusive proof of that.

The key difference in your analogy is that identifying a certain gender is all that's needed to "become" that gender, while identifying as part of a different race, ethnic group, or socioeconomic class cannot make you a part of it.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Until someone can even give a semi-coherent definition on what “non-binary” means, I’ll remain convinced it’s more or less just a way for people to make themselves sound more different and oppressed.

It means someone does not identify as male or female.

But what does that mean?


You haven't answered my questions from a couple pages ago:

I get that part. However, do non-binary people feel as though they have no gender at all or that they don't fit into the gender stereotypes of being a "male" or "female"? Or am I wrong?

Some identify with neither, some consider themselves in-between but maybe closer to one or the other, some fall into historical practices of gender non-conformity, and so on. It's a blanket term.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Until someone can even give a semi-coherent definition on what “non-binary” means, I’ll remain convinced it’s more or less just a way for people to make themselves sound more different and oppressed.

It means someone does not identify as male or female.

But I thought gender was a social construct. And since our society hasn't constructed gender roles for any genders aside from male and female, a "nonbinary" person has no alternative genders available to them to identify as.

You're not making any sense.

Some people just cling to their perceived right to be close-minded, hateful sophists.