Non-Binary?

[Katy133]

@Quelcezot: I guess the reason for this thread is to show that people identify as many different genders, not just "woman/girl" and "man/boy," and that gender identity is such a personal thing that the gender pronounces used for said gender vary from person to person. And that we should at the very least respect that.

Oh, I almost forgot, I actually have more than one project with non-binary protagonists: The one I mentioned before (see: above), and this VN project. It's set in an alternate universe in the future where "the gender binary code has been destroyed."

[Quelcezot]

@Quelcezot: I guess the reason for this thread is to show that people identify as many different genders, not just "woman/girl" and "man/boy," and that gender identity is such a personal thing that the gender pronounces used for said gender vary from person to person. And that we should at the very least respect that.

Oh, I almost forgot, I actually have more than one project with non-binary protagonists: The one I mentioned before (see: above), and this VN project. It's set in an alternate universe in the future where "the gender binary code has been destroyed."

If I wasn't so excessively talented with overlooking the actual point of things I'd have definitely focused on that too. For myself, I suppose I don't identify myself with the typical gender stereotypes. Frankly for myself, gender isn't something I really identify with at all. I'm certain of my sex, but I don't associate my state of mind with either male or female. Simply because I don't think men and women think very differently.

[Katy133]

If I wasn't so excessively talented with overlooking the actual point of things I'd have definitely focused on that too.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

And I agree, I don't think men and women think that differently.

[Quelcezot]

If I wasn't so excessively talented with overlooking the actual point of things I'd have definitely focused on that too.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

And I agree, I don't think men and women think that differently.

Don't worry about offending me, I was only getting at myself with that line. I didn't consider for a moment to be offended.

[trooper6]

If I wasn't so excessively talented with overlooking the actual point of things I'd have definitely focused on that too. For myself, I suppose I don't identify myself with the typical gender stereotypes. Frankly for myself, gender isn't something I really identify with at all. I'm certain of my sex, but I don't associate my state of mind with either male or female. Simply because I don't think men and women think very differently.

I am going to speak now as a transgender person. I am not transgender because I believe that men and women think differently. I have not bought into sexist stereotypes of men and women. I am transgender because my body ego, which is developed in response to in utero hormonal washes, was not aligned with my physical body. And so I aligned my body to match my body ego in order to treat my body dysphoria. I do not think that men like trucks and women like dolls or whatever; I do not think there is a male or female state of mind. There are, however, complicated and not-always-aligning various physiological elements that make who we are, and one of those physiological elements is gender identity/body ego. If a person identifies as non-binary, that is who they are. You don't have to like it. Luckily, there are many, many other terms that people can use to self-identify and make themselves seen and understood in the world. Agender, genderqueer, two-spirit, bigender, and many others.

To say, let's not have terms smacks very much of "racial blindness." Racial blindness only serves to keep power in the hands of the racial majority and erase racial minorities. To eradicate the words that sex/gender minorities have claimed to make themselves visible only serves to continue to keep them invisible and reinforce the fiction that there are only two sexes in our society.

[Quelcezot]

If I wasn't so excessively talented with overlooking the actual point of things I'd have definitely focused on that too. For myself, I suppose I don't identify myself with the typical gender stereotypes. Frankly for myself, gender isn't something I really identify with at all. I'm certain of my sex, but I don't associate my state of mind with either male or female. Simply because I don't think men and women think very differently.

I am going to speak now as a transgender person. I am not transgender because I believe that men and women think differently. I have not bought into sexist stereotypes of men and women. I am transgender because my body ego, which is developed in response to in utero hormonal washes, was not aligned with my physical body. And so I aligned my body to match my body ego in order to treat my body dysphoria. I do not think that men like trucks and women like dolls or whatever; I do not think there is a male or female state of mind. There are, however, complicated and not-always-aligning various physiological elements that make who we are, and one of those physiological elements is gender identity/body ego. If a person identifies as non-binary, that is who they are. You don't have to like it. Luckily, there are many, many other terms that people can use to self-identify and make themselves seen and understood in the world. Agender, genderqueer, two-spirit, bigender, and many others.

To say, let's not have terms smacks very much of "racial blindness." Racial blindness only serves to keep power in the hands of the racial majority and erase racial minorities. To eradicate the words that sex/gender minorities have claimed to make themselves visible only serves to continue to keep them invisible and reinforce the fiction that there are only two sexes in our society.

I don't quite get the point you're trying to make, considering that I agree with everything you're saying that I can actually understand.

You've pointed out that gender is considered social or psychological as opposed to physical. I don't understand the terms "male" and "female" in any other way. I think that sex is a relatively minor part of how we think, or at least that you cannot make reliable assumptions about the way people think by sex. I understand that it's possible to self identify as a sex other than your physical one.

I am not denying that there is inequality, and I have only worded dislike for the particular term "non-binary". I've also stated numerously how how trivial this opinion of mine is in the grand scheme of things. Like you though, I'm stubborn. If you keep bringing it up I will keep repeating that I don't like that particular term. And I don't, for reasons already stated. I do not harbor the belief that all gender related terminology is innately infuriating.

[Mad Harlequin]

I am not denying that there is inequality, and I have only worded dislike for the particular term "non-binary".

I respect a person's right to be referred to however they please, I do not respect pronouns.[...] Also, seeing people praising their inadequate gender neutral pronoun substitute fills me with despair for humanity. Irrational I know, and irrational the consequence. I endure "they", I do not like it.

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here? You don't have to like the fact that alternate pronouns exist, and you may find them as irrational as the labels they replace, but please don't begrudge others their choice to use them, or to make up new ones.

My dislike for the term is only based on semantics. It seems to make the depressing assumption that an active effort has to be made in order to portray characters in a non gendered way.

The term "non-binary" exists not to make that assumption, but to address gender identities that fall outside the binary male or female. You mentioned earlier that it seems to enforce that binary gender identities are the norm. Well, that's why the alternative, genderqueer, is becoming more widely used.

I don't really know how you've reached your conclusion, but describing a character as non-binary really has nothing to do with any "effort required" to portray characters in a non-gendered way. If an author chooses to describe a character as non-binary, I don't think it's because the writer is trying too damn hard to avoid a gender label. It's because it's deemed appropriate for the character in question.

[Kinjo]

@truefaiterman: In simplest terms, if you are NB, you feel as if you are something other than "male" or "female." There is not a whole lot to it.

I'd love to write about non-binary characters in visual novels. But I don't think I understand it well enough yet -- I think there actually is a whole lot to it, and I think that's a reason why people don't write VNs about it (although there are a TON of LGBT+ VNs in the Western world for some reason). The opening post didn't really explain what it is, and unlike other people here I don't have any formal education on what the term really means. But I'm interested, and have questions.

How do you define "feeling male" and "feeling female" and feeling neither or both? How do you measure it? It seems like the line is getting blurry.

By that definition (feeling as if you are something other than male or female) we have to look at the definition of feeling male and feeling female, which to my knowledge (rather than being based on physical parts) are just societal expectations and gender roles that are arbitrarily defined based on culture. By that logic, I'm non-binary, because I don't live up to either gender's expectations. Is that right, or am I missing something?

[Kailoto]

I endure "they", I do not like it. [...] It seems to make the depressing assumption that an active effort has to be made in order to portray characters in a non gendered way.

Just throwing in my two cents as a writer here - the gender neutral "they" is about the closest to an established genderless pronoun that you're going to get. As trooper6 already stated, it's been around for centuries, and while some contemporary writers disagree with the usage, it's very common to see it used. There's precedent for it, too: the singular "you" (ye) was originally the plural of "thou" in Old English.

I'm not sure I get how the singular they somehow invokes "an active effort" to portray non-gendered characters. Rather, I'm not sure about why that's bad. If a character is non-gendered, and that is an important trait, then the author may very well use "they" in order to convey that; in fact, they (wink) had better use it, because the alternative would be to ignore an important part of their character. An effort does have to be made, because English has gendered pronouns, and there's currently no pronoun for people who identify with neither gender. Unless we speakers of the language make an "active effort" to change that, it'll remain a problem forever.

The thing is, you dislike the usage of the singular they, but you offer no alternative that can be used. I'm also assuming you don't like words that people make up to replace it, as I got that sense from your posts. (I might be wrong.) Here's the catch twenty-two in your reasoning: words that are invented are unacceptable, and while the singular they is already established, it doesn't fly either. See the problem here? There's no options left, and ignoring the issue isn't a solution.

The singular they is already established, already has rules, and solves a problem of our times. It may not be perfect, but language never is. It is useful though, and worthy of being used in my opinion.

We trade the problem of default gender for the problem of having no way to distinguish individuals from groups. It also doesn't really work in the present continuous tense: "They is coming this way" for example.

All writing has its limitations in actual prose. That's why a good writer is capable of selecting the right words and syntax to make the ambiguous clear. Context clues (which a writer can assume anyone over the age of 14 uses) will solve the individual/group problem 90% of the time, and the other 10% can be rephrased in a way so that it becomes distinguishable.

As for the present continuous tense, it's not really much of a problem; your example only looks weird because the subject and verb don't match up and is/are is easily identifiable. For other verbs, like "They want to go," it's not as confusing. There's no definitive answer for are/is, but I side with using are ("They are coming this way") to preserve clarity, while admitting that this bends the usage of the word. Better yet, use a contraction, so the discrepancy isn't as apparent: "They're coming this way."

And that's the final point that I want to make, which is that languages are fluid. We use words and phrases to express the world around us, and as how we view the world changes, so too must our language. When people look at the way the youth of today are speaking, and mourn the loss of proper English, it is a folly; not because they are wrong, but because one day they will die and the youth will still be living, and some of their words and usages will be added into the vernacular. It has to be this way, otherwise people are stuck using a language that no longer serves its purpose, which is to accurately describe the world around them. So if we see a concept that needs defining, or a rule that needs tweaking, it does no harm to try to change it. In fact, it is probably for the best. A language that does not change is a dead language.

[Quelcezot]

I am not denying that there is inequality, and I have only worded dislike for the particular term "non-binary".

I respect a person's right to be referred to however they please, I do not respect pronouns.[...] Also, seeing people praising their inadequate gender neutral pronoun substitute fills me with despair for humanity. Irrational I know, and irrational the consequence. I endure "they", I do not like it.

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here? You don't have to like the fact that alternate pronouns exist, and you may find them as irrational as the labels they replace, but please don't begrudge others their choice to use them, or to make up new ones.

My point with your second quote is that I respect people not pronouns. I see no reason why pronouns cannot be disliked or discussed. I use "they" myself, and it's a constant torment. If I tried to use "he" it would be even worse. I don't see a contradiction. Like democracy, it's not that great but it's the best we've got.

My dislike for the term is only based on semantics. It seems to make the depressing assumption that an active effort has to be made in order to portray characters in a non gendered way.

The term "non-binary" exists not to make that assumption, but to address gender identities that fall outside the binary male or female. You mentioned earlier that it seems to enforce that binary gender identities are the norm. Well, that's why the alternative, genderqueer, is becoming more widely used.

I don't really know how you've reached your conclusion, but describing a character as non-binary really has nothing to do with any "effort required" to portray characters in a non-gendered way. If an author chooses to describe a character as non-binary, I don't think it's because the writer is trying too damn hard to avoid a gender label. It's because it's deemed appropriate for the character in question.

Maybe you're right. For what it's worth I'm a much bigger fan of the phrase genderqueer.

I endure "they", I do not like it. [...] It seems to make the depressing assumption that an active effort has to be made in order to portray characters in a non gendered way.

Just throwing in my two cents as a writer here - the gender neutral "they" is about the closest to an established genderless pronoun that you're going to get. As trooper6 already stated, it's been around for centuries, and while some contemporary writers disagree with the usage, it's very common to see it used. There's precedent for it, too: the singular "you" (ye) was originally the plural of "thou" in Old English.

I'm well aware of that, but as a fellow writer its clumsiness must also annoy you. As far as "they" is concerned, that's the only point I was making.

I'm not sure I get how the singular they somehow invokes "an active effort" to portray non-gendered characters. Rather, I'm not sure about why that's bad. If a character is non-gendered, and that is an important trait, then the author may very well use "they" in order to convey that; in fact, they (wink) had better use it, because the alternative would be to ignore an important part of their character. An effort does have to be made, because English has gendered pronouns, and there's currently no pronoun for people who identify with neither gender. Unless we speakers of the language make an "active effort" to change that, it'll remain a problem forever.

Seems like we 100% agree on they. The "active effort" refers to non-binary, at the time I was under the misimpression that sex and gender were synonymous in the context. Turns out that gender as well as sex go under the labels male and female, but mean something different. So before I couldn't see why you couldn't just have a male or female sex behave in a way that isn't gendered. Now I don't think I have the required understanding to comment.

The thing is, you dislike the usage of the singular they, but you offer no alternative that can be used. I'm also assuming you don't like words that people make up to replace it, as I got that sense from your posts. (I might be wrong.) Here's the catch twenty-two in your reasoning: words that are invented are unacceptable, and while the singular they is already established, it doesn't fly either. See the problem here? There's no options left, and ignoring the issue isn't a solution.

Enduring is my solution. For what it's worth I literally fantasize about non-clumsy gender neutral pronouns. E, is my favorite. E, er, es. What do you mean ignoring the issue isn't a solution? Like you pointed out, it's not changing anytime soon.

The singular they is already established, already has rules, and solves a problem of our times. It may not be perfect, but language never is. It is useful though, and worthy of being used in my opinion.

We trade the problem of default gender for the problem of having no way to distinguish individuals from groups. It also doesn't really work in the present continuous tense: "They is coming this way" for example.

All writing has its limitations in actual prose. That's why a good writer is capable of selecting the right words and syntax to make the ambiguous clear. Context clues (which a writer can assume anyone over the age of 14 uses) will solve the individual/group problem 90% of the time, and the other 10% can be rephrased in a way so that it becomes distinguishable.

It's normally a problem that can be worked around, but it clashes with minimal writing if that's what you're going for. Using it makes context necessary to be understood.

As for the present continuous tense, it's not really much of a problem; your example only looks weird because the subject and verb don't match up and is/are is easily identifiable. For other verbs, like "They want to go," it's not as confusing. There's no definitive answer for are/is, but I side with using are ("They are coming this way") to preserve clarity, while admitting that this bends the usage of the word. Better yet, use a contraction, so the discrepancy isn't as apparent: "They're coming this way."

I don't know which side of the fence to fall on, by going with "are" you're substituting a word you could be using to clarify that "they" is singular, in fact it implies the opposite. But it just feels wrong because of how people think and use language. I find it a big problem when I have to deal with it.

And that's the final point that I want to make, which is that languages are fluid. We use words and phrases to express the world around us, and as how we view the world changes, so too must our language. When people look at the way the youth of today are speaking, and mourn the loss of proper English, it is a folly; not because they are wrong, but because one day they will die and the youth will still be living, and some of their words and usages will be added into the vernacular. It has to be this way, otherwise people are stuck using a language that no longer serves its purpose, which is to accurately describe the world around them. So if we see a concept that needs defining, or a rule that needs tweaking, it does no harm to try to change it. In fact, it is probably for the best. A language that does not change is a dead language.

Nicely put.

@truefaiterman: In simplest terms, if you are NB, you feel as if you are something other than "male" or "female." There is not a whole lot to it.

I'd love to write about non-binary characters in visual novels. But I don't think I understand it well enough yet -- I think there actually is a whole lot to it, and I think that's a reason why people don't write VNs about it (although there are a TON of LGBT+ VNs in the Western world for some reason). The opening post didn't really explain what it is, and unlike other people here I don't have any formal education on what the term really means. But I'm interested, and have questions.

How do you define "feeling male" and "feeling female" and feeling neither or both? How do you measure it? It seems like the line is getting blurry.

By that definition (feeling as if you are something other than male or female) we have to look at the definition of feeling male and feeling female, which to my knowledge (rather than being based on physical parts) are just societal expectations and gender roles that are arbitrarily defined based on culture. By that logic, I'm non-binary, because I don't live up to either gender's expectations. Is that right, or am I missing something?

You may be missing something, but if you are you're missing the same thing I am.

[Mad Harlequin]

My point with your second quote is that I respect people not pronouns. I see no reason why pronouns cannot be disliked or discussed. I use "they" myself, and it's a constant torment. If I tried to use "he" it would be even worse. I don't see a contradiction. Like democracy, it's not that great but it's the best we've got.

I wasn't saying you couldn't dislike or discuss them. I saw a contradiction in your claim of respect because you seem to believe that an "inadequate gender neutral substitute" isn't worthy of praise---this in a time when genderqueer people have greater recognition and respect than ever before---but hand-wringing. You recognize this as irrational, but earlier said "Bite me." You call "non-binary" solipsistic. So are the people using it also solipsistic? What about those using other pronouns? You certainly don't have to agree with the other side in a discussion, but respect is paramount.

When you don't acknowledge the language others use, and worse, treat it dismissively and with contempt, on some level you are disrespecting them. That's why efforts have been made, after years of rejection, to include varieties of English such as AAVE (African American Vernacular English) in school lesson plans.

Regarding your trouble with "they," there are alternative pronouns available to use. I have a friend that uses "xe."

[Quelcezot]

I wasn't saying you couldn't dislike or discuss them. I saw a contradiction in your claim of respect because you seem to believe that an "inadequate gender neutral substitute" isn't worthy of praise---this in a time when genderqueer people have greater recognition and respect than ever before---but hand-wringing. You recognize this as irrational, but earlier said "Bite me." You call "non-binary" solipsistic. So are the people using it also solipsistic? What about those using other pronouns? You certainly don't have to agree with the other side in a discussion, but respect is paramount.

When you don't acknowledge the language others use, and worse, treat it dismissively and with contempt, on some level you are disrespecting them. That's why efforts have been made, after years of rejection, to include varieties of English such as AAVE (African American Vernacular English) in school lesson plans.

Regarding your trouble with "they," there are alternative pronouns available to use. I have a friend that uses "xe."

You've misunderstood me. My dislike for "They" is particular to the word itself and how unfortunately clumsy it is. It has nothing to do with genderqueer people. If "he" or "she" had the same problems I'd have the same problems. No contradiction. "They" is an inadequate gender neutral substitute for a language that doesn't have a proper one. "Bite me" was an ill judged demonstration of my dramatic dislike for "they". I happen to be writing a lot about certain gender ambiguous characters at the moment and it's driving me up the wall.

The same is true of non-binary. I don't personally like this word. I think it implies unfortunate things by how it is constructed. It implies that gender ambiguous people are the opposite of people who firmly identify with one gender or the other. NON-binary, as if some people are just one or the other. It creates another binary (you're either binary or you're not). It's useful, but the construction of the word focuses on isolation from a wider whole. Genderqueer on the other hand is more colloquial and places the focus on simply not being one particular gender, rather than being oddly distanced from both genders. Non-binary focuses on not being something and Genderqueer focuses on being something else. That is all I was interested in discussing.

I mention this because I think about how words are constructed. To me, that's something important because people think about how words are constructed even if they don't think they do. You may not agree with me, but if you're looking for a meaningful conversation with me on the subject I'd appreciate if you'd approach my dislike on the level of the words construction. Since I have no quarrel with anything else about it.

To me being respectful to others is not hating them, trying to understand them, and telling them what you actually think.

I like the idea of a proper gender neutral pronoun, but using one I just make up or using a very obscure creation of somebody else isn't an option I want to use, because it won't be immediately understood by most people.

[Mad Harlequin]

I mention this because I think about how words are constructed. To me, that's something important because people think about how words are constructed even if they don't think they do. You may not agree with me, but if you're looking for a meaningful conversation with me on the subject I'd appreciate if you'd approach my dislike on the level of the word's construction.

You're hardly the only one here who thinks about how words are constructed and used, or you wouldn't have received so many replies. No, I may not agree with you on all points, but I assure you that in forming my responses, I'm very cognizant of language, especially in a discussion such as this. I imagine everyone else here is, too.

You said respect is about not hating people and telling them what you think, with which I agree. So in the spirit of that definition, let me point out that on forums, you don't generally get to ask that people respond to you in a certain way only. I'm addressing what I perceive to be in your posts, though I may obviously be mistaken in my analysis of them. A person can be disrespectful without intending to be disrespectful. It's an error I've unfortunately made more than once. If you want to discuss the linguistic merits of the term "genderqueer" versus "non-binary," you may do so.

[trooper6]

The same is true of non-binary. I don't personally like this word. I think it implies unfortunate things by how it is constructed. It implies that gender ambiguous people are the opposite of people who firmly identify with one gender or the other. NON-binary, as if some people are just one or the other. It creates another binary (you're either binary or you're not). It's useful, but the construction of the word focuses on isolation from a wider whole. Genderqueer on the other hand is more colloquial and places the focus on simply not being one particular gender, rather than being oddly distanced from both genders. Non-binary focuses on not being something and Genderqueer focuses on being something else. That is all I was interested in discussing.

Some people are binary, however. To quote Leslie Feinberg, "If you are going to fight for the recognition of a continuum, you also have to recognize the poles of that continuum." Just because there are people who are bisexual/pansexual, doesn't mean that there aren't people who are monosexual.

Anyway what it comes down to on this subject for me is this. If *you* don't like non-binary as a term, don't use it to describe yourself. If genderqueer is a better descriptor of who you are, then use that. However, there are people for whom non-binary is a term that best describes who they are. When you crap on that term, you are also crapping on people for whom that term is an important part of their identity. And these people are not powerful people who are the hegemony. By crapping on them, you are punching down, not up. Is that what you want to do?

I understand your argument in general. It would be like saying, "I don't like the term non-white because it centralizes and normalizes whiteness." That's cool. But there are some people for whom non-white is a term that best describes their identity and that is important to them. If there were no other terms than non-white and every person who was something other than white had to use that term, it would be a problem, but that isn't the case. That also isn't the case with non-binary.

I'd also like to point about genderqueer has specific oppositional and radical implications that come with the term queer and a person may not identify with that term. Non-binary may be a better term for them than genderqueer.

So, let me put it this way, if you don't like it, don't use it to describe yourself and ask people not to use it to describe you. If someone does use it to describe themselves, don't be a jerk about their identity.

[Jate]

Anyway what it comes down to on this subject for me is this. If *you* don't like non-binary as a term, don't use it to describe yourself. If genderqueer is a better descriptor of who you are, then use that. However, there are people for whom non-binary is a term that best describes who they are. When you crap on that term, you are also crapping on people for whom that term is an important part of their identity. And these people are not powerful people who are the hegemony. By crapping on them, you are punching down, not up. Is that what you want to do?...So, let me put it this way, if you don't like it, don't use it to describe yourself and ask people not to use it to describe you. If someone does use it to describe themselves, don't be a jerk about their identity.

Well said. I support this statement (b=w=)b