Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[benji]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/happy-international-non-binary-peoples-day-enby-era.927096/

Halfway through the year and there is still no cogent explanation of non-binary that doesn’t rely on gender stereotypes.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/happy-international-non-binary-peoples-day-enby-era.927096/?post=125812080#post-125812080

What does this even mean? Are they now just wearing potato sacks, no gender expression at all?

I was only kidding but they really do…

I was going to quote something from a smart person but I can't remember it to find it in 30 seconds so you'll have to settle for me paraphrasing.

The non-binary nonsense, and trans nonsense, is a reification of gender from a social construct to essentialism. It rejects gender neutrality and gender equality to insist on the necessity of gender stereotypes. You can't "opt out" of the gender binary unless you define what is the binary and what consists of adhering to it. The only way to do this is by taking what you think are masculine and feminine stereotypes then asserting that these are the inherent nature of people who do not specifically choose to refuse them. This is literally the old argument that women (or men, but I'll stick to one from here on) are a certain way and actually goes further by insisting that they must be a certain way. The distinction with the old argument is that it said a woman who wasn't that way was an outlier but it rarely denied her womanhood, it said she was doing it wrong. Now they're arguing that if you do not act the way they think women should act, you literally are not a woman. They are taking a stereotype (bigoted/misogynist/etc. or not) which they acknowledge is a social construct and then asserting that it therefore determines reality rather than merely being an assumption about probability. Then they are morally condemning those who do not deliberately identify differently from the majority.

It's reactionary dogma like most all of their positions. It's an inversion where rather than being an individual who may vary from most you need to be "affirmed" as "valid" by confirmation of existing in a group which can be narrowed to one. But because this is basically operating on a fallacy it essentially needs to strip group membership of having any criteria except personal desire to belong to that group, rendering group status meaningless. It has to splinter into increasingly smaller groups because otherwise the individual no longer stands out. Everyone is already inclusive and equal because it includes everyone and that's the problem. It's not about inclusiveness and equality, it's about establishing the out group and asserting the superiority of yourself for not belonging to it.

It's been tied to gender (and race and etc.) because people are fucking idiots who have decided these need to mean something because racists and sexists thought/think they do.

Anyway, watch this because it's far more intellectual: