A few weeks ago, I was speaking to an agender person and I asked her about her gender (she doesn't mind feminine pronouns). Now, this person is what some would consider a radical feminist, and she told me she identified as agender because she wanted to escape gender expectations. I've heard this type of story before, identifying as a non binary gender not because of dysphoria or anything like that, but to escape the binary system. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think these people are "valid" in their gender identity?
I wouldn't take them seriously because they're implying gender is a choice and by identifying only as non binary to make a point, they're not only doing jack to actually contribute to solving that problem in the first place (addressing the problem of gender roles) but they're making it more difficult for non-binary people (and binary trans people) to have their genders seen as anything but a stunt for attention or an advocacy ploy. It's what I like to advise cis people who want to use gender neutral pronouns for this reason. I appreciate the sentiment but that won't do anything. Focus more on being a good ally to those who need one and address the problem with real solutions.
Yes, I was thinking the same sort of thing. If people use being non binary to make an advocacy statement, it could negatively affect our community. As a binary trans guy with a large amount of physical and social dysphoria, it bothers me that they willingly choose to be non binary, it might make people take us less seriously. But I don't think they mean to do harm by any of it. It seems to be a misguided effort to help break down gender roles without really achieving that effect.
I used to identify as agender for the same reason. I wanted a male body for the most part, but I didn't want male gender roles placed upon my shoulders by society. It took me a while to realize I could be male but I didn't have to follow male gender roles. I'm not saying every non-binary person is non-binary because of gender roles. There's non-binary people simply because they're non-binary.
That's...that's a thing?? O...ow... Okay then. I mean, yea, gender roles are shenanigans and no one should have to put up with them, but...kinda makes me feel invalid...and annoyed. I can't really put my thoughts into many words. I'm just gonna put a gif that kind of expresses my feelings on the matter and leave it at that.
Well...kind of invalidates a lot of people. I mean, yeah, gender roles are retarded and people shouldn't have to follow them if they don't want to. Just makes me kind of mad when people use these terms so loosely.
I would agree that that is a misuse (based on misunderstanding) of non-binary gender identities (agender in this case*). *though some agender people don't identify with being non-binary
Perhaps they're uncomfortable with gender roles because they go against their identity? I'd say it could play into social dysphoria, and there are plenty of genderqueer, genderfuck, and others who for some reason or another, just don't understand or accept gendered expectations. I don't think there's cis on one side, and trans on the other, since there are folk who aren't strictly in one camp or the other.
That's absolutely fair. However, the way that OP phrased it sounded like they're using agender only to get away from the burdens of gender roles and not anything to do with an identity. And that bothers me. I just... *sighs and refers back to the Han Solo gif I posted before*
Sigh, sound like a young person who has been brainwashed by 3rd wave feminism. Identifying with a minority group is equivalent to 'fighting for a just cause now'. Give or take 10 years, this lady will be a proud female. Or maybe she will try to appropriate even further and become the mask. And who are we to invalidate her identity? The more sympathetic a story is, the more credible, isn't it? *Puts on my skeptical face*
To be honest from what you're describing it's probably just a phase. Unless she really is non-binary, which it doesn't sound like she isn't, she probably won't be able to (or even want to) continue to act like she is for the sake of proving some kind of stupid point.
Whenever I see radical feminist and gender identity in the same post I tend to zone out. I'm not a gender or non-binary, but I feel offended for them. By saying what she did she is saying that gender identity is a choice, and I think we all agree that our identity is not a choice. Not much else to say, everyone else has already said it.
It always makes me feel discomfited, and seeing other people do it is a huge contributor to why I'm so anxious that I'm just doing the same thing without knowing it. Or knowing it and denying it. Or whatever. I mean, it's one thing to have a genuine preference for being referred to in a non-gendered way, referred to with neutral pronouns, etc. In that respect, I think people should follow what makes them feel comfortable. But literally as a political statement? Uncomfy, uncomfy, uncomfy.
I am going to race to judgment on this one. Gender is not biological. In fact, to say that gender is predominately neurological would still be inaccurate. Yes, there are hormones that factor into our dispositions, but our gender is not truly created through biological or chemical influences. We know this because there is no connection between hormone presence, such as testosterone or estrogen, and gender expression. Feminine men statistically possess the same balance of testosterone and estrogen as masculine men. Gender identity is formed psychologically; which does not mean that there are not neurological influences rather that our perceptions vary based on how we interpret those influences. In the same way that it is common for genetic diseases or dispositions to only effect one identical twin. They have the same set of genetics and likely will produce comparable chemical balances, but their bodies process and interpret the information differently. The point is that none of us are born with gender identities as clear and complex as the ones that our minds later form. There is no such thing as an Agender gene. There is no such thing as a feminine or masculine woman gene. It is all about development. Having the most basic set of genetic information and all of our bodies interpreting it differently. I know nothing about this individual; however, the mindset that the only valid reasons to identify as non-binary is if one experiences physical dysphoria is extremely problematic. Gender is 90% sociological. Genital dysphoria is the only type of dysphoria that an individual can experience without being socialized. We form our gender identities from being introduced to society. That does not mean that we aren't naturally one way or another. It simply means that we wouldn't have any concept of gender identity without being introduced to social concepts. It would be the equivalent of having a concept of sexuality or race after being raised in solitude. It is not possible. The hormones for sexuality would be there. The racial features would be there. However, you cannot have a concept of personal identity without having a reference point. Without being met with those who differ from us. Socialization played a huge part in how every single one of us formed our identities. None of us were truly born with a formal gender identity. We should not be getting into the business of policing the ways in which people can reject gender constructs. No one has to accept the gender identity that society bestows them with. Often times we think that because some of us suffer with certain types of dysphoria and others don't they they are less nonconforming, but at the end of the day gender is still a social construct. The idea that certain people are ingrained to have specific psychological characteristics at birth is a social construct; and people can absolutely reject social constructs for social reasons. Gender as a social construct is not something that anyone has to accept. It is not race or sexuality. No one has to live by the laws of gender and accept social perception. No one has to live as a woman or a man and insinuating that they should because we don't believe they are "unique enough" is insanely hypocritical and counterproductive.