If I had a dollar for every gender...

[Bidoof FTW]

Clickbait title aside, is there any psychological legitimacy to nonbinary gender identities? Why/Why not?

 

[Mobile Tsk]

Okay so it's likely I'll offend someone with this post but I feel gender almost always exists in a binary. There are some exceptions such as when someone is born with both sex chromosomes, and I can imagine navigating a world where gender exists in a binary would be difficult for such an individual. However, if that doesn't apply to you, then your gender is whatever your assigned biological sex is. Now, true, I probably shouldn't care about other people's identities. They are right when they say it doesn't affect me. But I most certainly won't defer to referring to people using gender-neutral pronouns. Mismatched gender identity used to be treated as a psychological disorder. Though I'm not sure it's necessary anymore with a more tolerant society, there's nothing to suggest we should change gender language to accommodate more than two genders.

 

[Somewhere_]

I have heard there are 57 or 58 genders... is this just Tumblr SJW stuff or legit? I need to be able to decipher between bs stuff and people who actually legitimately identity as a different gender than their biological sex.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't have a 100% answer here, but I have the beginnings of one I think? Or maybe it's just more questions lmao.

Basically, I think before we can answer this with any legitimacy, we have to first determine if gender is truly something inherent to our humanity or if it's a social construct like many believe. I think the answer to this question probably depends largely on which of those is actually the case.

If it's a social construct, then the answer is an obvious no if you ask me. In this case it was created specifically as a binary to reflect sex and those who consider themselves to be agender or genderfluid simply don't have an image of themselves that fits into this perception of reality. Basically, no there's no legitimacy here because the construct itself is binary an also because as a social construct it doesn't actually exist in the first place.

It's in the scenario where gender is a natural part of human identity that I find myself without any form of an answer at all because it becomes twice as confusing here.

 

[Kanzler]

I have heard there are 57 or 58 genders... is this just Tumblr SJW stuff or legit? I need to be able to decipher between bs stuff and people who actually legitimately identity as a different gender than their biological sex.

There's a lot of misinformation going about. The "57-58 genders" is actually a misquoting of some web page or article that describes 57-58 ways of describing gender - spanning the male-female spectrum, many ways of describing transgenderism and fluidity, etc. But there are only several core ideas, most of which most people are familiar with anyways. I'd find the source, but I should be doing other things right now and I don't think it's too hard to Google, so.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

In accordance to mammals, as we are, there are two main dominating genders: male and female. Getting into other animal species, gender becomes a real question, like crabs or frogs for instance that can translate from male to female in certain instances. But humans? No, not really. I'll be fair and allow a third gender of 'undefined' or 'indistinct'. Humans haven't propagated and spread to all areas of the globe because we had 30 odd or so genders or whatever the count is up to now. There are two, if not the only, dominant genders in the human race and that is male and female.

There isn't a need to create new terms and make things up as we go along just because it sucks to be you. Hell, I wanted to be a Transformer ever since they first showed up 30 odd years ago. I still do. Every now and then I'll pass by the auto section and spot W-350 Pennzoil and get to thinking that 'One day, I too, will be able to transform and roll out...'

 

[gimmepie]

In accordance to mammals, as we are, there are two main dominating genders: male and female. Getting into other animal species, gender becomes a real question, like crabs or frogs for instance that can translate from male to female in certain instances. But humans? No, not really. I'll be fair and allow a third gender of 'undefined' or 'indistinct'. Humans haven't propagated and spread to all areas of the globe because we had 30 odd or so genders or whatever the count is up to now. There are two, if not the only, dominant genders in the human race and that is male and female.

Sex and gender are not the same thing, you're getting mixed up here. What you're describing is sex, what we physically are (male or female). Although this is not a great description, gender is more like how we feel - who you are mentally vs physically basically.

There isn't a need to create new terms and make things up as we go along just because it sucks to be you.

Whilst I'm positive there's people out there who claim certain things just to be a special snowflake, I don't think you can reduce the entire discussion to this.

Hell, I wanted to be a Transformer ever since they first showed up 30 odd years ago. I still do. Every now and then I'll pass by the auto section and spot W-350 Pennzoil and get to thinking that 'One day, I too, will be able to transform and roll out...'

This reference has exactly nothing to do with a legitimate discussion on gender identity and talk like this has little place in any serious discussion at all quite frankly. People who take part in this discussion should do so maturely.

 

[Hands]

I don't think anyone who has never experienced gender dysphoria or anything of the sort is really qualified to discuss the merits of it's legitimacy. Science recognizes it, health care services the world over recognize it.

as for pronouns, is it really hurting anyone if someone would rather be a "Ze" or "they" than a "he" or "her"?

30 odd years ago

How old are you?

 

[Esper]

Yes, there is legitimacy. Speaking from just a biological perspective, there are people who are born with other combinations of chromosomes besides the common XY (male) and XX (female) pairs found in most humans. Sometimes people who have XY chromosomes develop physically as female as far as their physical appearance goes and may not ever know that they have XY chromosomes. Many children are also born with physical genitalia which do not appear to be either male or female. Basically, while there are some common things that happen biologically in humans, there are more than two possibilities.

So, given that nature is responsible for more than just two categories of human I think it's fair that we recognize that fact. True, through much of human history our languages and customs typically categorize people into a male/female binary, but tradition isn't reason enough to continue doing something, especially in light of our current scientific knowledge. Plus, there are many traditions which allow for and acknowledge other genders besides male and female such as fa'afafine in Samoa.

 

[Eden]

Being transgender and all this may seem like an unpopular opinion, but...

No. Until consistent psychological research proves otherwise, deep down someone is either a 0 or a 1. To me, gender as a binary is not a social construct. Non-binary stuff, however, is. Some cultures do have something interpreted as a 'third gender' but it is often exclusive to that culture and the ones surrounding it.

I will say there is room for questioning, however. Particularly when intersex people are brought to the table. Some even have a different chromosome makeup than just XX and XY. Plus, there's also a lot we don't know about the human psyche.

Now before someone says anything, I'm not against non-binary peeps in any way, and if they want me to call them different pronouns, then I do it gladly.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

Wait. What? Ah, well gender and sex are often used as euphemisms, as seen on common medical and state documents, so it's easy to get turned around. The problem, I find, with the whole 'societal fit' is that there are numerous holes for the... 1% to fall into regarding the truly narcissistic, psychotic, malevolent, violent, criminal offenders and murderers.

From what I gather, the gender discussion boils down to how one functions in society, right? I would think that then would let the train off the rails as each case is completely different and those in the extreme would fall into each separate category. Guh... now that I start to think about it, this whole discussion opens up a can of maggots in terms of legality defenses that paedophiles, serial rapists, psychos and numerous others have used to excuse them from crimes committed. So if possible, i'd lump us into two categories if that were truly the case: the conformist and those that do not conform to a societal construct under normal law abiding circumstances. The law sees two, so I see two. There is no exception to the rule, so it wouldn't ever matter how someone feels on the inside. A man that claims he's female will not be sent to a female restricted prison and vice-versa. So in reality, in our reality and in the eyes of the law, you are you and no one else.

There is a dangerous precedent here that I think people don't realise here, accepting the mentally ill claims will open the path to the legal scene. If a 57 year old man thinks he's a little girl and the law accepts it in an official capacity, what's not to say the argument that paedophiles are 'just that way'. The arguments aren't new to the defense, but accepting this 'gender is how you feel inside' can have consequences. If there ever is a case that is accepted in a court of law, it then opens the door for more diseased minded criminals to escape justice and claim mental retardation or psychosis.

Look, I don't really care if you think you're a cat, a girl, a boy or whatever else, but these people are beginning to push the issue that since we 'assign' genders at birth the state is oppressing them. I don't want to see a complete flip on hundreds of years of legal precedence be done away with because of hurt feelings.

I know that they want to be called a certain thing. Okay, great. I accept that they want to be called that, and I'll try to remember what they want to be called (I don't do names too well but I'd prefer names and not 'genders') but they'll also have to accept that people reserve the right to not give a damn and call them whatever they damn well please. Just don't go trying to change the court. Changing the court is bad juju and I'm not too fond of letting the real criminals go because they 'feel' a certain way. The defense will utilize whatever they have at their disposal to try and win and I don't look forward to the day when the court is forced to deal with an 8 year old boy trapped in a 47 year old woman like she wants to be treated. Now before you go saying that that isn't what the 'gender issue' group wants, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what they want or what you want. Legal precedence can set the standard whether you mean for it to happen or not. It sucks sometimes but that's the way it is. Keep it non-official.

So, I don't care outside my house. I care about the books and what is on paper so I'll continue going off of that.

 

[Psychic]

This thread is a day old and already people are conflating biological sex with psychological gender. Can't really have a debate on this subject if you don't get the difference between the two.

According to the American Psychological Association:

"Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women."​

Sex and gender are not the same thing, so the argument that "there are only two biological sexes, therefore there are only two genders" holds no ground. Not to mention that there are also many instances where someone's biological sex does not fit neatly into one of two boxes! One's gender and sex are not automatically related - that is the definition of being cisgender VS transgender.

Here is a handy reference for understanding our current psychological, biological, sociological and and academic understanding of all things sex/gender:

Those who believe that there have historically only been two genders are also seriously misinformed. A quick Google search provide tons of examples of additional genders, both around the world and throughout history.

Okay so it's likely I'll offend someone with this post but I feel gender almost always exists in a binary. There are some exceptions such as when someone is born with both sex chromosomes, and I can imagine navigating a world where gender exists in a binary would be difficult for such an individual. However, if that doesn't apply to you, then your gender is whatever your assigned biological sex is. Now, true, I probably shouldn't care about other people's identities. They are right when they say it doesn't affect me. But I most certainly won't defer to referring to people using gender-neutral pronouns. Mismatched gender identity used to be treated as a psychological disorder. Though I'm not sure it's necessary anymore with a more tolerant society, there's nothing to suggest we should change gender language to accommodate more than two genders.

Homosexuality also used to be treated as a psychological disorder, but now we know that it is perfectly natural and acceptable. Additionally, as I showed above, non-binary identities have existed throughout history and around the world.

Being transgender and all this may seem like an unpopular opinion, but...

No. Until consistent psychological research proves otherwise, deep down someone is either a 0 or a 1. To me, gender as a binary is not a social construct. Non-binary stuff, however, is. Some cultures do have something interpreted as a 'third gender' but it is often exclusive to that culture and the ones surrounding it.

I will say there is room for questioning, however. Particularly when intersex people are brought to the table. Some even have a different chromosome makeup than just XX and XY. Plus, there's also a lot we don't know about the human psyche.

Now before someone says anything, I'm not against non-binary peeps in any way, and if they want me to call them different pronouns, then I do it gladly.

A lot of academics actually do say that gender is a social construct. I can point you towards some readings if you'd like. :)

It's not just "some cultures," though - it's quite a few, across the world and throughout history. You can check out the links about for more info.

Wait. What? Ah, well gender and sex are often used as euphemisms, as seen on common medical and state documents, so it's easy to get turned around. The problem, I find, with the whole 'societal fit' is that there are numerous holes for the... 1% to fall into regarding the truly narcissistic, psychotic, malevolent, violent, criminal offenders and murderers.

Uh, sex and gender aren't euphemisms, they are widely-used terms by psychologists, physicians, sociologists, academics, and more. Using them interchangeably would be nonsensical, because they are two distinct things as stated by the American Psychological Association.

From what I gather, the gender discussion boils down to how one functions in society, right? I would think that then would let the train off the rails as each case is completely different and those in the extreme would fall into each separate category. Guh... now that I start to think about it, this whole discussion opens up a can of maggots in terms of legality defenses that paedophiles, serial rapists, psychos and numerous others have used to excuse them from crimes committed. So if possible, i'd lump us into two categories if that were truly the case: the conformist and those that do not conform to a societal construct under normal law abiding circumstances. The law sees two, so I see two. There is no exception to the rule, so it wouldn't ever matter how someone feels on the inside. A man that claims he's female will not be sent to a female restricted prison and vice-versa. So in reality, in our reality and in the eyes of the law, you are you and no one else.

This paragraph makes no sense. Are you seriously comparing trans people and people who identify outside of the gender binary to paedophiles and rapists? You do realize that gay people used to be compared to those things all the time, right? Also, the laws of many countries acknowledge trans people, and are starting to acknowledge those outside of the binary as well. This includes determining what sports team you play on, what bathroom you can use, and yes, what prison you get sent to. Even so, laws can lag behind - remember when it was legal to bar black people from using "white" water fountains or going into "white" restaurants?

So, I don't care outside my house. I care about the books and what is on paper so I'll continue going off of that.

I don't think the rest of your post is worth responding to, aside from this. If you care about "the books and what is on paper," you'll be happy to hear that many experts agree that there are more than two genders. I can point you towards a few, if you're interested.

~Psychic

 

[CoffeeDrink]

This paragraph makes no sense. Are you seriously comparing trans people and people who identify outside of the gender binary to paedophiles and rapists? You do realize that gay people used to be compared to those things all the time, right? Also, the laws of many countries acknowledge trans people, and are starting to acknowledge those outside of the binary as well. This includes determining what sports team you play on, what bathroom you can use, and yes, what prison you get sent to. Even so, laws can lag behind - remember when it was legal to bar black people from using "white" water fountains or going into "white" restaurants

That's not really the point I was attempting to make. While it isn't a defense that works, it is a legitimate last line of defense to say that a murderer or a rapist is 'just that way because' regardless of motive or psychological reasons. The reason why I brought it up is because the court system doesn't work that way. If one of these individuals, let's say, kills someone. And this individual psychologically identifies as somebody else or a different age, what have you. If their defense is successfully approved and accepted, it sets precedence and opens the door. I'm not saying gay people or gender people are rapists. I'm saying that it is possible to usurp this cause for nefarious gain. That's what I was trying to say. It doesn't really matter which professionals and which psychologists believe because they won't have the luxury of having to build a defense for a 'transgender' person. I put it in marks to say that whether or not the accused is telling the truth or not it's all speculation, not that transgenderror persons are all criminals.

Typing gender into Google comes back with a definition [gender] and a synonym pointing to sex. My dictionary had it under euphemism. So it could be out of date.

 

[Psychic]

That's not really the point I was attempting to make. While it isn't a defense that works, it is a legitimate last line of defense to say that a murderer or a rapist is 'just that way because' regardless of motive or psychological reasons. The reason why I brought it up is because the court system doesn't work that way. If one of these individuals, let's say, kills someone. And this individual psychologically identifies as somebody else or a different age, what have you. If their defense is successfully approved and accepted, it sets precedence and opens the door. I'm not saying gay people or gender people are rapists. I'm saying that it is possible to usurp this cause for nefarious gain. That's what I was trying to say.

This argument has nothing to do with reality. A murderer or a rapist is breaking the laws that state that you cannot harm others. Their psychological state is taken into account during rulings, but it does not change the crime or the way the crime is treated. A transgender or gay person is breaking no such laws - they are not harming anyone by trying to live their lives like anybody else and asking to be treated with respect. Trans people are not asking to be "identified as somebody else or a different age," and do not typically believe that their identity means they should receive different treatment if they do break the law. If someone breaks the law and asks for special treatment by pretending to be transgender, they should be treated the same way as someone who breaks the law and pretends to have a mental illness. The needs of people with mental illness should not be ignored just because there are a few people out there who will try to take advantage of the system by faking having mental illness - then you're punishing the wrong people, and not actually solving the problem. You're focusing on the wrong thing.

Again, trans people do not ask for special treatment in cases such as breaking the law. What could they possibly ask for? The only realistic example I can think of is if a cisgender man pretends to be a transgender women because women tend to receive lighter sentences for the crime he committed, or are treated better by the system. However, in such an instance, it is the fault of the system for giving women lighter sentences and treating them better to begin with! In that case, the system should change because it is unjust and is being taken advantage of. This literally has nothing to do with being LGBT - you are trying to blame the wrong people.

Funny you mention people being treated as a different age in court, though - did you know that a lot of minors get tried as adults in court? Recent records showed that 84% of minors who were tried as adults were black. If you legitimately care about this issue, you are looking in the wrong direction.

It doesn't really matter which professionals and which psychologists believe because they won't have the luxury of having to build a defense for a 'transgender' person. I put it in marks to say that whether or not the accused is telling the truth or not it's all speculation, not that transgenderror persons are all criminals.

That actually is not true - psychologists and academics do get brought on as experts during court cases when the need arises. Additionally, when a defendant is thought to have a mental health condition, they undergo psychological evaluation by experts. I still do not see what this has to do with the current conversation, but I can assure you that it is not an issue.

Typing gender into Google comes back with a definition [gender] and a synonym pointing to sex. My dictionary had it under euphemism. So it could be out of date.

Sure, and if you type "Indian" into Google, you get results defining Indians both as 1) people from India and 2) a synonym for Indigenous Americans. People use Indian colloquially to mean the latter, even though that term is literally incorrect. Old explorers assumed that North America was India, so called the people here Indians. They were obviously wrong, but people still use that term to this day, which isn't helpful. Colloquial terms are not necessarily correct. If you wanted to have a real conversation or debate about a subject relating to First Nations people, you would not be taken seriously if you kept calling them "Indians."

Either way, none of this really has to do with the "psychological legitimacy of nonbinary gender identities."

~Psychic

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

I think you've taken it a bit further than it should have. Again, I am not saying transgender people break the law. I'm not saying being gay is against the law. What I am saying is that it can open problems Courtside. Don't know what Indians or Native Americans have anything to do with it. I said that 'transgender' people, as in people whom falsely state that they are transgender, can claim in court that their crimes were not malicious in nature because of what they believe.

I've also stated that psychological experts have absolutely nothing to do in terms of building a defense. The lawyers do. Having a witness or expert is a key part of building a defense, not the defense itself. So, no, Psychologists do not build defenses, they merely reinforce them.

If you did work in the courts you'd find just as many experts as you would hacks. Anyone can claim to be an 'expert' and I've seen it been done before. Professionals, however, are a different story entirely...

What I don't understand is that you seem to think that I believe that transgender people are all criminals. All I've stated is that it can become a legitimate defense, regardless of what you want to believe. Sure, transgender people want respect. Okay, great there's nothing wrong with that. But you seem to think the court cares about whether or not they do get treated with respect or not. The court is there to condemn or vindicate. So even if the person is or is not transgender doesn't mean they can't claim as being one. And if one court finds someone not guilty due to being transgender, than it gives a foothold to everyone else regardless if they are transgender or not.

It's an argument, a defense, a claim whether true or not. What I worry is if a civil case can be found in favor of a transgender person, it then can be accepted criminally. Does that make any sense?

So if Mr. A commits fraud or is found not guilty of any civil law, then Mr. B can then be tried under the same effects even though he allegedly committed, say, a robbery. That's my point.

This whole mess that you seem to think that transgender people won't be used as an excuse is a bit naive. Anything can, and will, be used as a defense and if in criminal or civil law a 'transgender' (faker or not) is found not guilty due to the way they feel, than the case can then be cited in every court in the country, potentially seeing differing sentences due to how someone feels.

That is my issue. Not 'transgender people aren't real' or "transgender people want special treatment". It's "This will be used as an excuse".

But this is a huge digression form the original issue, so I have no further comment on the whole transgender issue other than it can, and will, be used in court as an excuse. Thinking otherwise is incredibly naive.

On the 'experts' you cited.

Spoiler:

On Juvie cases, I used it as an example, not that it would ever work. Besides, I consider armed robbery and murder capital offenses.

Also, I would look into the example you gave in terms of the 84% Juvi rate. I don't think online surveys count as factual... Also, they seem to have only utilized one source from FL in one of their examples, and they don't seem to give any info from the DOJ itself, which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Wouldn't it make sense to take every case from the DOJ and add it up?

How did they get these numbers without consulting the court system itself? 'Experts'. Here's one for you: Most Crips are aged 12-24. That means a group with roughly 30,000 members that commits violent crimes are at or below legal adult status.

Not to mention that blacks are about 60% more likely to attack whites than viseversa . Blacks make 13% of the overall population but commit about 40% of all violent crimes, and the age group stated above Something to think about. Oh, and the Department of Justice also has this doc pointing to actual, factual work in regards to true numbers. The document finds that black males in a younger age bracket commit a vast majority of homicides and violent crimes.

Two 'experts' not citing this document or any document like this from the DOJ aren't experts. If you want to talk about court cases you go to the heart of where cases are held, the DOJ. I would think that is common sense. You gotta use the DOJ, otherwise you're just blowing smoke like these two.

 

[gimmepie]

Can we please actually discuss the topic at hand? The legitimacy of non-binary gender identities has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans, black children, paedophiles or even the transgender community.

Discuss the topic at hand and if you want to talk about other things make a separate thread.

 

[Psychic]

I really don't think you actually took the time to read my post - not even the paragraph with all of the bold in it. Also, it would help if you would quote the parts of my post you are responding to.

I think you've taken it a bit further than it should have. Again, I am not saying transgender people break the law. I'm not saying being gay is against the law. What I am saying is that it can open problems Courtside.

I already addressed the idea that non-binary genders would affect court proceedings. Half of my post addressed this. Let me repeat:

Trans people are not asking to be "identified as somebody else or a different age," and do not typically believe that their identity means they should receive different treatment if they do break the law. If someone breaks the law and asks for special treatment by pretending to be transgender, they should be treated the same way as someone who breaks the law and pretends to have a mental illness. The needs of people with mental illness should not be ignored just because there are a few people out there who will try to take advantage of the system by faking having mental illness - then you're punishing the wrong people, and not actually solving the problem. You're focusing on the wrong thing.

Again, trans people do not ask for special treatment in cases such as breaking the law. What could they possibly ask for? The only realistic example I can think of is if a cisgender man pretends to be a transgender women because women tend to receive lighter sentences for the crime he committed, or are treated better by the system. However, in such an instance, it is the fault of the system for giving women lighter sentences and treating them better to begin with! In that case, the system should change because it is unjust and is being taken advantage of. This literally has nothing to do with being LGBT - you are trying to blame the wrong people

I have countered the only situations I could think of where a transgender or non-binary identity could affect a ruling. You have failed to give a single example as of yet. I would like to see you give some examples we can actually discuss instead of constantly suggesting that "it is plausible if you squint at it hard enough."

Don't know what Indians or Native Americans have anything to do with it.

Seriously? I made a point to show how "gender" and "sex" are different, and in response you said:

Typing gender into Google comes back with a definition [gender] and a synonym pointing to sex. My dictionary had it under euphemism. So it could be out of date.

This indicated that you believe that gender and sex should be used interchangeably. I compared this to how stupid it would be to use Indian and Native American interchangeably. I assume this means you will be using the terms sex and gender correctly from here on out.

I said that 'transgender' people, as in people whom falsely state that they are transgender, can claim in court that their crimes were not malicious in nature because of what they believe.

This indicates that you do not understand what being transgender means. Being trans does not mean you can commit a crime and get away with it. Being trans is about your identity, not about your actions. Pretending to be trans in order to get away with a crime would not serve as a legal argument. Again, if someone believes that they can get away with a crime by pretending to be trans, then that means the system is flawed and needs to be fixed. That is not the fault of trans people. If you truly care about this issue, you are not holding the right people accountable.

I've also stated that psychological experts have absolutely nothing to do in terms of building a defense. The lawyers do. Having a witness or expert is a key part of building a defense, not the defense itself. So, no, Psychologists do not build defenses, they merely reinforce them.

That is wrong: that is the role of an expert witness: "a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case." So if there is reason to believe that someone is faking being transgender, you would call in an expert witness. Same with if you thought someone was faking having a mental illness - they administer a psychological evaluation and have an expert present their opinion on the results. So this is not a problem worth discussing.

What I don't understand is that you seem to think that I believe that transgender people are all criminals. All I've stated is that it can become a legitimate defense, regardless of what you want to believe. Sure, transgender people want respect. Okay, great there's nothing wrong with that. But you seem to think the court cares about whether or not they do get treated with respect or not. The court is there to condemn or vindicate. So even if the person is or is not transgender doesn't mean they can't claim as being one. And if one court finds someone not guilty due to being transgender, than it gives a foothold to everyone else regardless if they are transgender or not.

You are not reading my posts; I addressed this above. Regardless, this is not related. Being transgender cannot be used as a "defense" in court - being transgender does not mean you get to break the law. Again, I addressed the only examples I could think of, so if you can give examples where this would be a legitimate concern, I'd like to hear them.

It's an argument, a defense, a claim whether true or not. What I worry is if a civil case can be found in favor of a transgender person, it then can be accepted criminally. Does that make any sense?

So if Mr. A commits fraud or is found not guilty of any civil law, then Mr. B can then be tried under the same effects even though he allegedly committed, say, a robbery. That's my point.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. If a civil case was found in favour of a religious person, would you have the same beliefs about the consequences of it? What examples can you give that relate to cases with transgender or non-binary people?

This whole mess that you seem to think that transgender people won't be used as an excuse is a bit naive. Anything can, and will, be used as a defense and if in criminal or civil law a 'transgender' (faker or not) is found not guilty due to the way they feel, than the case can then be cited in every court in the country, potentially seeing differing sentences due to how someone feels.

That is my issue. Not 'transgender people aren't real' or "transgender people want special treatment". It's "This will be used as an excuse".

You're right: anything can be used as an excuse. Religion can and DOES get used as an excuse - are you also campaigning against religion? This argument is ridiculous. Again, I have not seen any examples which legitimize your concern. And even if being trans WAS used as an excuse, an expert can be brought on to testify about it, and a judge can still deem it irrelevant.

Once again, none of this really has to do with the "psychological legitimacy of nonbinary gender identities." How someone's identity would affect a court proceeding does not affect the legitimacy of the subject. In regards to any other type of identity, we don't bring up the affect it would have in court, so the fact that you're so focused on this sounds incredibly prejudiced.

The rest of your post is not worth my time touching.

Can we please actually discuss the topic at hand? The legitimacy of non-binary gender identities has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans, black children, paedophiles or even the transgender community.

Discuss the topic at hand and if you want to talk about other things make a separate thread.

I brought up terminology for Native Americans and the way certain groups are treated by the judicial system to make a point about how hypocritical it is to pick on the non-binary and transgender communities. Also, a lot of non-binary people do identify as transgender and are a part of the trans or greater LGBTQ community.

~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

Eh, I don't claim to be an expert on gender identity stuff so thanks for the new information. Either way though this thread is steering into off-topic waters and I'd like people to be mindful of that.

 

[Desert Stream~]

Honestly gender is just what someone identifies as, so there could be potentially infinite genders.

 

[Kanzler]

Honestly gender is just what someone identifies as, so there could be potentially infinite genders.

I think that is highly problematic.