Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's the thing though, if it's not just a person making their own choice, it's a person placing an expectation on other people how they must conceptualize and refer to them, and in the case of "non-binary people" creating this new category in our society and expecting everyone to accept it or else they're a bigoted *******.If it's so arbitrary that it's basically meaningless (which for the record I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly the message non-binary gender blender upside down triangles who change their gender every week give off), why not refer to people as male or female based on their biology and let them have the personal freedom to express themselves or dress or get cosmetic surgery in whatever way they see fit?
And that's the thing, social constructs are still socially negotiated. What is considered polite in our society is a social construct and socially negotiated, you can't be a prick to everyone and say "I identify as a polite person and therefore you must refer to me as that" and expect to get away with it.
Simple answer, rather than shaming having positive male and female role models, in real life, in our stories, etc. Something inspirational.
Well, not quite. It's someone choosing their identity and informing you what the label is. Asking us to use that label is different from placing constraints on personal expression. The idea is that non-binary has always existed, but we never acknowledged it due to ignorance or bias.
In an ideal world, this may actually be a valid approach. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. The constructs around male and female are here, and until society evolves into something else, those terms point to commonly understood modes of expression.
I see socially negotiated and socially constructed as mostly redudant. It doesn't change anything. A rude person doesn't actually participate in any of the modes of polite identity. A transgender person does participate in the the modes of their gender.
I see that as simply encouraging positive traits, which are mostly identical among genders. You don't want to raise honest women but dishonest men. Or kind men but selfish women. A positive model of behavior is probably good, but gendering it isn't necessary. People will still be free, possibly more so, to explore their own individual identities outside of that.
Edit: I think what you're talking about is actually the "I'm not on the spectrum at all" folks. The whole point of adopting the spectrum view of things was to be all-inclusive. The folks thinking they aren't on it at all are misguided. Non-binary makes sense at least, as we can exhibit both masculine and feminine traits at once.
But to claim to be outside of the spectrum entirely....lol. Some folks want to be unicorns I guess.