@jeffcliff You'll have to forgive a bit of a rant.
Understanding that most of these people no longer have my support because they have tribunals set up by the state to protect them from anyone being impolite to them and thus they imagine themselves my masters... (I don't oppose them as a whole, but you won't see me sticking my neck out like I might have in my youth)
"Non-binary" seems to me like a bullshit term 99% of the time.
1. The time I see it most used is by biological females who present as biological females, dress as biological females, think like biological females, act like biological females. "Here's a woman dressing, talking, acting like no man who thinks he's a man would ever think about dressing, talking, and acting. They're so non-binary lol!"
2. These people hate masculinity yet want to pretend they're half masculine to join a club. If you ever act stereotypically masculine, they'll hate you for it, but they allege that they are partially masculine and thus you can't define them as the thing they clearly are, but they hate the thing that they claim to be equally. They'll hate seeing masculine men being masculine (not really, but they'll pretend for the crowd), then claim they're partially a masculine man. It's absurd.
3. These people explicitly rely on outdated gender stereotypes as a primary argument. "I'm not a woman because I don't follow 1950s stereotypes of what a woman is!" look they, it isn't 1950. Women's rights have had 70 years to evolve, women's role in the world have had 70 years to evolve, you can be a woman acting like a woman and not follow ancient stereotypes. Likewise, "I'm partially a man because I do follow some 1950s stereotypes of what a man is!" look they, it isn't 1950. Men's role in society has been evolving for 70 years, that doesn't mean they're not masculine, it means that what it is to be a man is different today than it was back then.
Even amongst the most obviously masculine men of today, things are different than for the greatest generation. It's expected that a masculine man is much more self-sufficient than the man of his grandfather or great grandfather's generation. He can cook. He can clean. He can do laundry. He can help raise the kids. If he gets into a relationship, it's expected that even if the distribution of roles don't fall that way, he isn't helpless and he *can* help if the other person needs it.
There have been times throughout history where sexual dimorphism was never in question but what it was to be a man appeared to be much different than the stereotypes of 1950. In edo period Japan for example, the (nearly exclusively male) samurai class was expected to be able to fight and kill and rule, but they were also expected to compose poetry and present as slightly effeminate. It wasn't because they weren't manly, it's because at that time what was considered manly by society was a dichotomy of having strength and force paired while at the same time not having to express machismo and chest thumping to get across that strength and force. That isn't necessarily non-binary, it's just expressing that binary in different ways. In the west in the medieval period, chivalry explicitly tones down the machismo -- showing respect and even deference to the weak despite being the strongest people in the room.
Indeed, discretion is considered a defining mark of a higher class individual throughout history but particularly in recent history. The same samurai who could cut down any peasant who disrespected him was expected to cut his own stomach open if needed in the event that they or someone under him dishonoured the name he carried. The modern business suit, a mark of being an important person, started when a politician started wearing the clothing of the common man instead of fancy frilly clothes. Most politicians today on the campaign trail have a uniform consisting of a button-up shirt and bluejeans, matching the people they'll meet. Chivalry was the behaviour that took a mere mercenary fighter and turned that individual into someone worthy of being a knight, a warrior-aristocrat with higher class than someone who just stabbed people for a living.
Anecdotally, I know a number of millionaires, and there are some striking things about the way they live. They may own porsches, but they daily drive a toyota corolla or honda civic. They may own very nice suits or dresses, but they shop for their daily wear at walmart. The people most likely to drive a fancy car everywhere tend to be poor and the act is aspirational, they'll wear fancy clothes because one day they want to be someone who routinely wears fancy clothes and the act is aspirational. The rich don't need to impress the masses, and often they don't want to impress the masses -- If the masses are impressed then they'll come with their hands out. Better to quietly enjoy the fruits of your position in society than to make it obvious how much better you have it.
Our current fixation with and total denial of labels I think comes from a similar sort of place. Men (who by virtue of many of their attributes as men have more overt societal power) work to conceal their masculinity, whereas women (who by virtue of many of their attributes as women realistically have more subtle social power) work to enhance theirs. Men want to pretend they aren't actually men, and women want to pretend they aren't actually women, in spite of the immutable characteristics shining through regardless. Apparently it isn't ok to just say "I'm a man but I live my life how I want to live rather than how stereotypes tell me how to live" or "I'm a woman but I live my life by how I want to live rather than how stereotypes tell me how to live", so we need to all participate in a shared social hallucination.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not denying the existence of fringe cases, but it's kind of like celiac disease: A very small number of people actually have problems digesting gluten, but compared to that number of people the number of people who say they have problems with gluten despite that being clinically false is astronomical. The downside is that unlike with celiac disease where these poseurs mean that people with a rare disorder can eat at a lot of places, the poseurs in this case end up absolutely destroying the reputation of people who actually need help. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't have any support for people who now have special state protections that normal people could never even consider having. I'm explicit about it, but there's a lot of people who quietly have revised their opinions due to the behaviour of people pretending to be a thing.
Ok, rant over. I know, you didn't ask but it was interesting to write.
Understanding that most of these people no longer have my support because they have tribunals set up by the state to protect them from anyone being impolite to them and thus they imagine themselves my masters... (I don't oppose them as a whole, but you won't see me sticking my neck out like I might have in my youth)
"Non-binary" seems to me like a bullshit term 99% of the time.
1. The time I see it most used is by biological females who present as biological females, dress as biological females, think like biological females, act like biological females. "Here's a woman dressing, talking, acting like no man who thinks he's a man would ever think about dressing, talking, and acting. They're so non-binary lol!"
2. These people hate masculinity yet want to pretend they're half masculine to join a club. If you ever act stereotypically masculine, they'll hate you for it, but they allege that they are partially masculine and thus you can't define them as the thing they clearly are, but they hate the thing that they claim to be equally. They'll hate seeing masculine men being masculine (not really, but they'll pretend for the crowd), then claim they're partially a masculine man. It's absurd.
3. These people explicitly rely on outdated gender stereotypes as a primary argument. "I'm not a woman because I don't follow 1950s stereotypes of what a woman is!" look they, it isn't 1950. Women's rights have had 70 years to evolve, women's role in the world have had 70 years to evolve, you can be a woman acting like a woman and not follow ancient stereotypes. Likewise, "I'm partially a man because I do follow some 1950s stereotypes of what a man is!" look they, it isn't 1950. Men's role in society has been evolving for 70 years, that doesn't mean they're not masculine, it means that what it is to be a man is different today than it was back then.
Even amongst the most obviously masculine men of today, things are different than for the greatest generation. It's expected that a masculine man is much more self-sufficient than the man of his grandfather or great grandfather's generation. He can cook. He can clean. He can do laundry. He can help raise the kids. If he gets into a relationship, it's expected that even if the distribution of roles don't fall that way, he isn't helpless and he *can* help if the other person needs it.
There have been times throughout history where sexual dimorphism was never in question but what it was to be a man appeared to be much different than the stereotypes of 1950. In edo period Japan for example, the (nearly exclusively male) samurai class was expected to be able to fight and kill and rule, but they were also expected to compose poetry and present as slightly effeminate. It wasn't because they weren't manly, it's because at that time what was considered manly by society was a dichotomy of having strength and force paired while at the same time not having to express machismo and chest thumping to get across that strength and force. That isn't necessarily non-binary, it's just expressing that binary in different ways. In the west in the medieval period, chivalry explicitly tones down the machismo -- showing respect and even deference to the weak despite being the strongest people in the room.
Indeed, discretion is considered a defining mark of a higher class individual throughout history but particularly in recent history. The same samurai who could cut down any peasant who disrespected him was expected to cut his own stomach open if needed in the event that they or someone under him dishonoured the name he carried. The modern business suit, a mark of being an important person, started when a politician started wearing the clothing of the common man instead of fancy frilly clothes. Most politicians today on the campaign trail have a uniform consisting of a button-up shirt and bluejeans, matching the people they'll meet. Chivalry was the behaviour that took a mere mercenary fighter and turned that individual into someone worthy of being a knight, a warrior-aristocrat with higher class than someone who just stabbed people for a living.
Anecdotally, I know a number of millionaires, and there are some striking things about the way they live. They may own porsches, but they daily drive a toyota corolla or honda civic. They may own very nice suits or dresses, but they shop for their daily wear at walmart. The people most likely to drive a fancy car everywhere tend to be poor and the act is aspirational, they'll wear fancy clothes because one day they want to be someone who routinely wears fancy clothes and the act is aspirational. The rich don't need to impress the masses, and often they don't want to impress the masses -- If the masses are impressed then they'll come with their hands out. Better to quietly enjoy the fruits of your position in society than to make it obvious how much better you have it.
Our current fixation with and total denial of labels I think comes from a similar sort of place. Men (who by virtue of many of their attributes as men have more overt societal power) work to conceal their masculinity, whereas women (who by virtue of many of their attributes as women realistically have more subtle social power) work to enhance theirs. Men want to pretend they aren't actually men, and women want to pretend they aren't actually women, in spite of the immutable characteristics shining through regardless. Apparently it isn't ok to just say "I'm a man but I live my life how I want to live rather than how stereotypes tell me how to live" or "I'm a woman but I live my life by how I want to live rather than how stereotypes tell me how to live", so we need to all participate in a shared social hallucination.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not denying the existence of fringe cases, but it's kind of like celiac disease: A very small number of people actually have problems digesting gluten, but compared to that number of people the number of people who say they have problems with gluten despite that being clinically false is astronomical. The downside is that unlike with celiac disease where these poseurs mean that people with a rare disorder can eat at a lot of places, the poseurs in this case end up absolutely destroying the reputation of people who actually need help. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't have any support for people who now have special state protections that normal people could never even consider having. I'm explicit about it, but there's a lot of people who quietly have revised their opinions due to the behaviour of people pretending to be a thing.
Ok, rant over. I know, you didn't ask but it was interesting to write.
@jeffcliff no, it was a quick response to your comment based only on my current thoughts on the matter.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@jeffcliff I didn't realize there was a link, it was slightly past the end of the post. I've saved it to my YouTube, it does look interesting. My book goes into a lot of genetic and evolutionary discussion about where our different behaviors come from. Makes you realize how small and how important we are at the same time.