For the first time in British history
A first! A milestone! A barrier broken down! Eyes on the prize!
Ooooooooooooh the first openly non-binary person. Think of all the trembling non-binary persons in their closets, feeling newly empowered.
Only…what is it that’s “openly,” exactly? What is it about Tom Pashby that makes him “non-binary”? Is that supposed to mean neither female nor male but a pleasing mix of both? If so, how can we confirm? How do we know? What does he mean? What does Pink News mean?
In other words…what we’ve been presented with here is a man, who is claiming to have done something significant and Firstish, by calling himself not a man but instead non-binary, yet there is no detectable difference between this man and any other man, of a kind that would prompt us to put him in the “Neither” column. In short he looks like a man, a common or garden man, nothing to see here folks. Why are we being told to gape in amazement at his groundbreaking First?
It seems like a good wheeze if you’re brazen enough. Can rich people do it? Can a billionaire claim to be non-binary, neither rich nor poor but a mix of both? Can white people do it? Neither white nor brown but non-binary and thus more special than either brown or white? Can anti-immigrationists do it? Neither native nor foreign-born but non-binary? Can bosses do it? Neither a boss nor a worker but non-binary?
It’s all so…deep.
That’s not even true. Males in power have been “openly non-binary” for centuries. They are the only people who count. There’s no “binary.” They have never had to consider what they “identify as,” or what they would like to distinguish themselves from. They are simply the Default Person.
“People who look like this”? You mean people who have tree trunk earrings?
maddog – that too; good point.
I also was scratching my head at “How amazing for people to see people who look like this in power!” Aside from the previously mentioned tree-trunk earrings and the weird dent in his head visible through his glasses, he looks perfectly normal to me.
I guess I sort of have double standards, because when someone transitions as Caitlyn Jenner did, I get annoyed that their idea of being female is to buy into every female image stereotype there is, but then I also get annoyed when no effort is made to change anything. We see that with transwomen who don’t even bother to shave their beards, etc. So here when I’m told to look at this magnificent enbie I kind of expect to see something different. Maybe some dramatic lipstick to accent that beard?
Yeah, as to that:
A transwoman, a drag queen, and a transvestite go into a bar. The barkeep turns to the one with a beard and asks “What will she be having?”
What ever you say Humpty.
Plus, who cares? It seems to me his announcement basically boils down to with whom he’s prepared to have sex.
Sounds like a lawn gnome. I don’t know, but they don’t look quite right for that job, unless they also identify as “short” and “ceramic.”
Does this mean they have declared everybody is “non-binary,” they won, and we are now going back to normal?
Because I don’t find it quite as amazing as they seem to to see people who look like middle-aged white men in power. Of course, I mustn’t assume that this person, who looks like a middle-aged white male, is actually just that. It may be an elderly brown bear with a great makeup kit. But they did bring up “looks like.”
As Penis News says elsewhere:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/11/15/uk-election-trans-non-binary-candidates-lib-dem-labour-greens/
Meet the new bosses. They look just like the old bosses.
Wait. Is the “how amazing…!” comment not sarcasm? I was reading it as a dry “whoop, a man in power, quelle surprise” but the poster is serious…? Holy moly.
Going off into self-indulgent, narcissistic wankery isn’t really a good look for a party that’s supposed to be trying to save the planet by looking at solutions for problems with how we face reality. The inability or refusal of our civilization to recognize the long term impossibility of an economics dependent upon perpetual growth, and the sweeping away of its unavoidably destructive consequences as “externalities” that can be safely ignored, is really not that far away from the inability or refusal to recognize basic biological facts like sex. How can one fight the former while embracing the latter?
Min, the “how amazing…!” comment is sarcasm. O is responding to the tweet underneath; the breathless one by Pink News.
Min,
At first I though she was being serious, but after looking at her Twitter profile it’s clear that was sarcasm.
e.g.: https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1292401093687668742?s=20
Shorter me: What Lady Mondegreen said.
@Skeletor #4
I think the apparent dent in his head is due to light refracting through his glasses, not his actual head.
Yay, more blokes in power!
Oops, I took that tweet to be serious rather than sarcastic.
I’m having trouble seeing the page, but I believe they are also all male.
Holms @17, there’s one (nb) who might be a natal woman. The others are all male* for sure.
I understood that many non-binary people don’t identify as trans and actually object to that categorization – as they might. After all being trans is about swapping gender, not rejecting gender. The Pink News article has a note saying that “…recognises that not all non-binary people identify as trans and has tried to use language that reflects this where possible.” but then goes on to say trans including non-binary a couple of times at least, or just ‘trans’ in others. Apparently it’s not always possible to recognise people identity preferences. Good to know.
* On a related note – linking to discussion we’ve had in other threads – I took a hearing test today. I was asked what my birth sex was, specifically because when interpreting results, that matters.
I had an MRI scan recently. The form I had to fill in to say my body isn’t riddled with shrapnel asked my sex, the one that declared I don’t have COVID-19 asked my gender.
I will probably get slated for this, but I have an honest question.
I think I am out of the loop, and you may think I am being disingenuous, but what is the issue here…I can’t sort out sarcasm from the satire from the truth.
I think that even though he is (self-declared?) non-binary, he is still a white male – is that the issue?
Am I being naiive asking ‘is he the right person for the job?’
Actually, I wasn’t sure if people were attacking him, or the report ABOUT him. That was the biggest confusion.
I am tentative in asking – I know we need diversity in politics (for example), so more women, persons from diverse cultures, people representing more of the gender spectrum etc.
Doesn’t a non-binary person help in some way?
If it was a non-binary african-american woman, would that have been more acceptable?
I really am worried about these question – they really are honest.
I used to be addicted to this site about 15 years ago (!!!), but only just have redicsovered it.
So I am coming back to the fold – be gentle.
Deni – welcome back! Or should I express sympathy for your lapse back into addiction?
Yes, for me at least the fact that he is still a white male is the basic issue. It’s not any kind of exciting progressive first for a white male (non-immigrant etc) to be campaigning for leadership.
Also I don’t think “non-binary” means anything. Also I don’t think sex is a spectrum, and I think the meaning of “gender” has expanded so much and in such contradictory ways that it’s all but useless. No, I don’t think people who call themselves “non-binary” help with diversity, partly because as in this case that can mean just another white guy.
An African-American woman wouldn’t be eligible for leadership of a UK political party!
The continuity with 15 years ago, I think, is that the claims made by trans activists are arbitrary and fantasy-based and cultish, and I think those are serious flaws.
Deni
Sort of. He is a white male, yes, who is considered a diversity hire because has declared himself non-binary. But what does such a declaration mean? A non-binary person is simply someone that is making a big deal of the fact that, in their estimation, they are a poor match for the gendered stereotypes placed on their sex.
Think of yourself. Your hobbies, personality traits, odd quirks, profession, likes and dislikes… amongst that lot, you will probably agree that you are a mix of the things associated with your sex, and things not. Because most people are that way. The degree varies, but it is normal to have some mismatch.
Also, I said ‘in their estimation’ above deliberately, because I have seen plenty of enbies that were just totally ordinary men or women, making their non-binary claims something of an informed attribute; that is, the only sign the observer has that the person is non-binary is the non-binary declaration itself. I recall (but can’t find) a B&W post on exactly that sort of person – a couple looked completely conventional, and this annoyed them as they considered themselves non-binary or queer or whatever it was.
And so the article above causes eye-rolling by making a big deal of this guy being a diversity hire due to the declaration he has made about himself, despite that declaration being banal and trivial. This is just another white guy going for office, something that happens routinely, yet here is PinkNews fawning over him – and plenty of others in that article – on the basis of his self-declared specialness and nothing more.
Deni
Describing that guy as the first “openly non-binary person” to be campaigning for the leadership of a UK political party also implies that everybody else campaigning for such a position either is or pretends to be “binary”. And this matters because then it’s no longer simply about whether or not trans people have the right to “define who they are” but whether or not they have the right do decide who everybody else is as well (“Women are whatever they have to be to make me one of them”, “Men are whatever they have to be to make me different from them” etc.).
In order to make it true that “trans women are women”, “trans men are men”, “trans people are the gender they say they are” etc. TRAs have to redefine “men” and “women” and “gender” to be all about thoughts and feelings or other “inner” characteristics. Thus referring to a person as “man”, or “woman”, or “binary”, or any “gender” what so ever, in the lingo of these people is to make a factual claim about what’s going on inside his/her head. Some of us don’t appreciate having such inner characteristics attributed to us, especially when they seem entirely derived from sexist stereotypes. As I have stated many times I am not a “man” if being a “man” says anything about what’s going on inside my head.
I have so many questions – but please just let me know if my ignorance gets a bit wearing. I don’t have to pursue this.
The original post said: “Is that supposed to mean neither female nor male but a pleasing mix of both? If so, how can we confirm? How do we know? What does he mean?”
I didn’t realise that people were supposed to ‘confirm’ their sexuality or gender. Isn’t that problematic?
I think I am confused about the thrust of this website. I guess it has changed over the many years I was absent! That is not a criticism, but maybe that is where my confusion is. Is this a site for human rights, self-expression, self-determination, respect – but also critical skepticism and asking hard questions…
I think it is, but hence my confusion – I really, honestly, do not know if this particular article and responses are pro-diversity, anti-patriarchy, anti-trans, anti-gender spectrum, pro-pronoun etc etc.
This is what is doing myhead in. I have read, and re-read the post and comments, and am confused.
Also, please let me know if I make no sense. Or am askingthe wrong question. I looked at the ‘about’ of the website, and it is too short, and stops short of explaining it’s mission. I really want to engage, and loved reading and commenting on this site in the (distant) past. So I want to be part of it.
I guess I am asking – what it the philosophy of Butterflies&Wheels now – as long as I know, I can engage correctly.
Thank you all, ahead of time, for your patience.
deni
Hi Deni,
As someone who mostly reads and occasionally posts comments I would classify it as reality based discussions with sprinkles of fun here and there. I wouldn’t worry too much about it as long as you have valid points about whatever it is you wish to bring up. I must confess I often get lost in some of the detailed philosophical analysis and logic operations so I just skim over those comments and hope someone posts an explanation I can understand later :^)
Deni – about
What I said in the post was in reference to the content of the tweet, which said “an openly non-binary person” is doing blah blah, along with a picture of a pleasant-looking smiling beardy guy. Obviously beardy guy doesn’t have to confirm anything to me personally, but that’s not the point – the point is that people claim things in public media like Twitter, and the rest of us get to respond. We get to ask if claims make sense, if they add up, if they’re internally coherent, and the like.
I don’t really have a philosophy, as such (and that means B&W doesn’t). I do have a kind of ethics of inquiry and thought and discourse, though, so maybe that will do. I dislike bullshit. I think the tweet above is bullshit. I hope that helps.
Also Deni – what name did you use when you commented here in the past?
Thanks Ophelia.
I previously posted, I think (!) either as Deni Pisani or Ubernez.
It’s been too long to remember.
(I rarely commemt on anything – this may be one of a handful. I did respond once to a LinkedIn story where Levi (after another gun tragedy) banned guns in store, and the Americans lost their sh#t. I had great fun with that.
Otherwise, I think I commented on your site over 10 years ago. I am clearly exercising my free speech as much as I want to – which is to say, only rarely and when moved to).
Looking forward to reading more on B&W.
deni
Heh – indeed, there is no minimum requirement for commenting.