And everyone else is a mixed bag of broken biscuits
Samantha Rea on why it’s not cool to erase women:
Last week on Twitter, a representative for the Green Party gave a shout-out for the Young Greens Women Twitter account, directing “non-male” members to give them a follow.
I – along with many others – objected to this phrasing, on the grounds that women exist in their own right, not in relation to men. Referring to women as “non-male,” positions men as the defining group, and women as “other.” It’s like saying that men are Coca Cola and women are the supermarket budget brand – or men are filet steak and women are a bargain bag of offal.
Or men are normal and women are some bizarre aberration, or men are the majority and women are some weird tiny minority exception.
When she expressed her dissent on Twitter, kind people explained to her.
“Maybe they were trying to be non-binary,” suggested one. Another proposed that: “Maybe they were trying to take gender fluidity into account – non-males might be a wider group than just women.”
Without meaning to, their explanations simply reiterated the binary I was objecting to in the first place: “male” juxtaposed with “non-male”; male presented as the polished paradigm of the human species, and everyone else lumped together as “other.” It’s like saying men are a box of Duchy Originals, and everyone else is a mixed bag of broken biscuits.
Plus there’s the fact that if we stop talking about women, that’s the end of feminism, and we’d rather feminism didn’t end yet, thanks.
But this wasn’t the only aspect of the responses that bothered me. It was the implication that there are “women” and there are “non-binary people” (who can be chucked together with women, in the broken biscuits bag). There seems to be a lot of confusion at the moment surrounding words like sex, gender, and non-binary – so, armed with a handy MSc in Gender, let me see if I can help clear this up.
Sex is biology. Gender is culture.
Gender is an idea of how men and women should behave. It’s a stereotype that’s dictated by society, and it bears no innate relation to sex (biology). In other words, it’s a cultural construction.
If someone identifies as non-binary, it generally means they reject the gender stereotype that’s associated with their sex. But actually, by this definition, we’re all prone to being non-binary, because none of us rigidly adheres to the stereotypes associated with our sex.
Me? I swear like a navvy who’s tarmacked his testicles, and when I blow my nose, it sounds like an elephant’s calling for back-up. I wear a dress maybe 10 per cent of the time, and I have never cleaned my oven. I handed back the only engagement ring anyone gave me, and I’ve never bought Cosmo. Do I identify as non-binary? No, I’m a woman – and like most women (and men) I simply don’t conform to all the stereotypes associated with my sex.
That, exactly. I don’t identify as non-binary either, even though I am de facto non-binary – but then as Samantha says, who isn’t? I don’t identify that way because I am in fact a woman and I simply don’t conform to all the stereotypes associated with my sex, and I really don’t think we should be plucking out all such women from the category “women” because then how could we possibly unite and fight?
The suggestion that there are ‘women’ and ‘non-binaries’ implies that while non-binary people reject these gender stereotypes, women (and men) happily accept and adhere to them.
And we don’t. We don’t, we don’t, we don’t. The stereotypes are not our doing, and we reject them – and we’re still women.
It’s important to remember that when women were denied the vote, they were denied it because they were biologically women – regardless of their gender identity or whether they were gender-conforming.
So political parties, please: if you want women to support you, don’t refer to us as “non-male.”
Women fought for the vote – we’ve had it less than a hundred years, and it wasn’t easily won. The women in the suffrage movement didn’t go on hunger strike for today’s political parties to sweep us aside as “non-male.” They fought for “Votes for Women.”
Remember when the cool non-conforming thing was to be Goth? So sweet, so innocent, so healthy. I miss that.
The message they are sending is: “Cis scum, you are welcome to join, but please be aware we consider you privileged in relation to other non-males, and while we are not against women’s rights, we will not be prioritizing them. Expect our policies to include male women and nonbinary people being allowed full access to women’s shelters, etc. Also, we already have lots of male members, so the Good Old Boy network is already in play here, and your intellectual contributions and ability to gain visibility will be limited while you’ll still be asked to do grunt work like get petitions signed, make coffee for meetings, and do clean up.”
If that’s the message they want to send, uh, well done then.
If it isn’t, they need to re-evaluate their messaging.
Quite. You can’t, by definition, define non-binary in comparison to a monopole.
There are several incredibly clunky, probably widely incomprehensible metaphors that keep occurring to me through this ‘non binary’ stuff…
So that was your apology in advance.
Like, sure, people keep telling me they’re non binary. But are they just saying can we treat their opcodes as octal or does this question even apply, as they are truly analog? Or are they _mostly_ digital, but the supply voltages are so dodgy you have no idea what the output is gonna be for any given input?
I mean, get in there with a multitester, you can always find _some_ analog, gates shuffling state to state so slushily you figure they’d date just about anyone… Is this where we’re at? Or do they figure they’re more some cool tube-based amp thing, all curves up until near overdrive…
I’m pretty sure I’m some ad hoc, point to point wired haphazard mess, myself, thrown together as an extremely poorly thought-through science project. If I’m in any way digital, it’s some terrifying, hopelessly baroque clockless tangle, and I pity whoever ever has to debug this thing. As to what it was it ever supposed to do? No idea. Some kind of random number generator, maybe. But, then, isn’t everything.
I too identify as some ad hoc, point to point wired haphazard mess. I find that a very apt description, in fact.
It’s nice to see our conversation from months ago be be reiterated independantly.
I’m quite happy with fuzzy logic, in the technical sense, coming into play on identity matters.
By their logic, you could change the terms to female and non-female. It’s another indication that culture affects talk about gender andstill revolves around maleness
#3: but… if there are 10 kinds of people, males and nonmales, how are they nonbinary?
So, ‘MALE’ and ‘OTHER’ is non-binary?
Um…count ’em.
This brings me back to a thought I’d left off on another thread. Humans can differentiate between male and female faces and voices at a young age (different reactions to male/female faces are measurable in infancy). Let’s suppose, hypothetically, there were an aspect of human development (post-dating the ability to discern males and females, but pre-dating language development) which entailed the formation of a deep-rooted sense: “I’m one of these, not one of those”. And let’s also suppose, for some people, that once this sense was established, it was experienced powerfully and remained unshakable throughout their lives.
How would you classify such a hypothetical sense? “sex” or “gender”? “biology” or “culture”?
Is that the only thing infants can differentiate? Do infants have different reactions to other categories of faces?
That’s a real question, by the way, not a gotcha or a sarcasm. I’d really like to know. My guess (having not seen the research) is that infants respond to differences, and thus do differentiate categories other than sex.
For the hypothetical, you can treat the ability to differentiate as necessary, but not sufficient; and “self-categorization sense” as occurring only in the realm of male vs female. The question isn’t really about the plausibility of or mechanics behind the hypothetical sense, but the language one would use to describe it if it did exist.
But that said, yes, I believe crude differentiation (faces vs not-faces; person vs not-person; etc) kicks in extremely early (I want to say “is present from birth” for the face/non-face, but don’t quote me on that), and is refined with age. I even believe there’s a development milestone wherein babies (toddlers? children?) firmly grasp that they are people; the “same kind of thing” as all the people around them.
I don’t think I understand the point of the hypothetical then. (@ 13)
@ 14 same here. I have read about some research that indicates that, here and there.
The point is that – without arguing over *whether* this sense actually exists – I wonder if you’d agree that *if* it did, then it would render the statement “Gender (whether someone is a girl/boy/woman/man) is cultural and sex (whether some has male or female reproductive genitalia) is biological” as fallacious (or at least incomplete).
If a person developed this inner sense “I’m one of these kind of people, not one of those kind of people”, and only later gained the language capacity to use words to differentiate “these kind of people” or “those kind of people”, the natural expression of that inner sense would be, “I am a girl, not a boy.” (or vice-versa). Per the hypothetical, the inner sense they’d be describing is purely biological. But “I am a girl” is gender. Which would contradict the mantra, “Sex is biological; gender is cultural”.
So the point is not to argue over whether this hypothetical sense actually exists. It’s not even to debate the best way to accommodate it. It’s simply to determine: if it did, would you still stand by “Sex is biological; gender is cultural”? If so, I reiterate my question. Would such a [biologically driven; developed-early-in-life] sense, later expressed as “I am a boy” / “I am a girl”, be referring to that person’s “sex” or their “gender”? Or would you say “it’s not gender or sex” – and introduce a new term [something like “gender identity”?] in order to speak of the phenomenon more precisely?
Kevin #16, no, that wouldn’t render the statement fallacious. Your hypothetical “sense” is something a person feels as a result of the existence of both sex and gender; it’s not something that we need to categorize as either sex or gender. I think you’re making this too complicated.
If everything relevant were completely different, would I change the way I talk about such things? Yes, I’m sure I would. Stop the presses.
#8:
Speaking as a closet Mayan: seriously? That many?
Do you have other places where you work this hard to commandeer reality—not to mention other people’s good time and attention—to fit your very personal, emotional interest, Kevin?