Properly explaining why non-binary is nonsensical in terms of gender and doesn't need specialized pronouns.

Basics.

It would be really hard to find the concrete origins of the first versions of he and she in any language, but they most probably had to do with typical role and functional distribution (which obviously evolved/evolves), along with sexual and love relationships and the obvious tendency to identify and treat differently potential partners. The actual replacement of a name for a pronoun in itself is obviously to ease and accelerate communication (while still providing relevant info).

With the development of science and language, a distinction was made to differentiate biological sex from the behavioral and emotional tendencies that individuals from concrete social groups would perceive as masculine or feminine. This is the concept of (social) gender or gender role, mainly coined from social psychology and sociology.

It's not incompatible with the concept of biological sex, it actually complements it to understand ourselves with more precision. Because despite having the same chromosomes and sexual organs, different men or women can have very different personality traits associated with masculinity and femininity in their respective common social groups. Which is obviously a relevant variable.

The third layer is gender identity, which is the feeling itself of belonging or not to a specific gender. And usually attached to social gender or gender role.

Conclusions from this part:

There are 3 important factors to keep in mind when addressing gender in other parts of this entry:

- Biological sex.

- Social gender or gender role.

- Gender identity.

Conventionalism in Language.

It's important to understand that in language conventionalism is many times used as reference to make communication easier and faster, and not as literal designation.

For instance, every single person will have a unique perception of what is masculine and feminine, despite tendencies and perceptive overlapping. You and I may live and interact in close social groups, but there will still be differences in how we perceive and identify something or someone in general as feminine/masculine. Many times we will agree, but sometimes we will differ. Yet that doesn't mean we have to concentrate linguistically that very specific info in one pronoun or article for everything and everybody.

We have the rest of the language to properly communicate what we truly think and feel more specifically if necessary.

For example, we don't use specific pronouns/any linguistic particle for someone who is and/or identifies as predominantly introvert, or predominantly kind, or predominantly funny, or to reference sexuality, etc.

We do use masculine and feminine pronouns out of referential conventionalism and linguistic heritage, influenced by different factors. But even then, we don't necessarily think it establishes in absolute terms that concrete aspect of someone's personality.

An extreme example would be someone who uses she for a trans woman despite being a real transphobe (in the sense of really hating trans people) and only out of conventionalism and convenience. While still perceiving that person categorically and plainly as a man, refusing the concept of social gender (and gender identity).

Constructed Personality and Psychobiological Tendencies.

One of the most consistent ways to approach social norms is considering them as constructive guidelines that create perceived reality instead of restrictive rules. Individuals create meaning and versions of reality (norms) in their symbolic interactionism, while norms themselves shape and build individuals' in a constant fluctuation. Internalization of norms can also happen from vicarious learning (from observation and without actual interaction).

This stance implies norms don't necessarily force concrete individuals in concrete social groups to behave or feel in a certain way. They shape them mainly through interactions, and every individual becomes a unique combination that influences the fluctuation of norms too. At most people feel restricted or forced in a sudden different social context, where the norms of another social group are easier to identify as imposed rules. Analogously to how some people can perceive religious traditions from other religions like indoctrination but not their own traditions (having the illusion that they chose them naturally).

On a more practical level:

Nobody points a gun at people to use memes in certain patterns; nobody points a gun at people to wear clothes from identifiable normalized tendencies; nobody points a gun at people to write certain type of info in their bio in Twitter; nobody points a gun at DMC players to follow certain patterns when creating combo MADs; etc.

These examples of normalization aren't very transcendent on the surface, but when you extrapolate the same mechanisms to more relevant areas, like friendship and love, femininity and masculinity; or negative phenomena, like racism, nazism in Germany (there are obviously more variables); you realize the importance of the constructive character of norms.

This approach explains well many observations and is similar to Foucault's. Mine integrates a layer of what I call psychobiological tendencies. Which means that social norms haven't been fluctuating arbitrarily from the apparent chaos of social interactions, but also influenced by more biological tendencies.

One of my over-mentioned examples is how canons of beauty can be very different in different cultures and even in closer social groups, but the majority will still tend to value symmetry and harmony in facial features. Possibly because they are probabilistic indicators of some relevant genetic factors (at least by the time our design was evolving). Does this mean someone with a big asymmetric forehead won't be perceived as attractive by anybody in any culture or social group? Of course not. There are many other variables and that is the point of a tendency.

In a similar way, different cultures may still tend to value positively humility because we have some mechanisms to perceive our own status and identity in the form of ego (not talking about Freud's ego, but the way we can distinguish ourselves and our reputation from others; ego as our perceived individuality). Systematically people would prefer to interact with individuals who are humble because they don't affect or hurt their own ego, progressively building the norm. While the norm builds partially individuals itself.

Another example would be a psychobiological tendency for males to behave more aggressively because of hypothetical genetic reminiscence from adapting to competition (with other males) and/or protection of their territory and family. It doesn't mean every single male will be more aggressive than every single female, but it can still be a tendency that may affect the way norms fluctuate and how men are perceived by some social groups.

To make a visual analogy, the most consistent way to look at social norms is considering every particle of water as an individual who keeps a momentum from psychobiological tendencies (waterfall), but can still internalize very diverse social norms that will build a unique personality and fall in a wide range after interacting with other particles (not a perfect analogy because of dynamic of fluids, but you get the point).

There is more about this here. Including parts about the importance of conflicts for more accelerated changes in social norms, cognitive dissonances in deep introspection and its importance as a chance to re-construct oneself, how this concept of social norms can explain why someone's values can be contradictory (since the absorbed norms were contradictory beforehand), and more. But in Spanish and not that relevant for this argumentation.

The conclusion from all this point though:

Masculinity and femininity fluctuate in terms of social gender like other norms. There are more than probable psychobiological tendencies, like the example with aggressivity. Another obvious tendency is how most people are predominantly masculine or feminine according to their biological sex, but even in such cases, one same person can behave sometimes in a way that others perceive as typical from the opposed gender. For example, men in big groups with other men can behave very frivolously. Something that can be perceived as typically masculine. But in a more intimate context they can be more sensitive, caring, etc. Which could be perceived by some as feminine.

Stereotypes are irrelevant for this argumentation. They are schemes to help identify elements in the social interactions for each individual. Here we talk about the big picture and tendencies, that exist regardless of the accuracy of the schemes of one person.

Freedom is also irrelevant to the discussion. People should be free to express their gender combination as they want as long as they don't hurt others in an unfair way or force them to do something illogical. It's more complex, but you should understand that when I talk about tendencies and their fluctuation I don't mean everybody should stick to tendencies. Especially if the normative tendency is (truly) oppressive.

Non-binary, Transgender and Gender-Fluid.

There are 2 main ways to look at the concept of non-binary in terms of gender:

1) As a combination of masculinity and femininity.

2) As something outside masculinity and femininity.

From the previous point, it's obvious that the first option can make sense. To some degree, because the term non-binary would imply others are just binary.

It's very improbable to think that during my life, I haven't internalized absolutely any bit of mannerism, emotional/behavioral pattern that can be perceived as feminine in the closer social groups, even if I am biologically a man and predominantly masculine social gender-wise. This is why I say technically we are all non-binary. It just doesn't have much relevance. Especially for language, because non-binary (1) should imply he or she.

But 2) doesn't make sense.

For the second option to be true, we would have to make sure that someone non-binary (2) has not internalized a single masculine and feminine trait from the normative spectrum of femininity-masculinity. When it's obvious that most people (actually every individual) this person has interacted with or has observed were in the spectrum.

That's not just improbable. That's absurd, unless some other big theory is proposed. Much more consistent and logical. And there isn't any even more consistent to explain phenomena (we will get to that in the next point).

There is something ultimately ironic (and not in a good way) in someone upset and aggressive because you don't use they/them, when not even his haircut is non-binary (2), let alone his behavior, easily identifiable as predominantly masculine and common in many other overconfident male teenagers.

Again, it's about tendencies. Talking about stereotypes here wouldn't make any sense if the reader properly understood the previous part of the argumentation.

Is the feeling a lie?

No, but what type of criterion would that be to demand different pronouns? The point of gender was to establish a relative consistency in behavioral patterns, not only the feeling of identity. Nonconformity feelings are true, assuming the person isn't consciously or pre-consciously lying for other objectives, like attention. But nonconformity without a different behavioral/emotional pattern isn't enough to say that person has another gender.

Not without distorting the whole point of what gender is.

If merely the single feeling of not belonging to male or female is enough and we keep expanding the concept of gender, it will inevitably get diluted. It may be hard to find someone who identifies as helicopter, but not so hard to find people who identify as other animals. And they obviously haven't extirpated from their behavioral patterns any trace of humanity..., and of course wouldn't really want to be treated totally as other animals.

In a similar way, some non-binary (2) may want specific pronouns... But they don't reject every single bit of male/female (gender-wise) treatment from their boyfriend/girlfriend, friends in general, etc. Not only because it's impossible, but because it's not even convenient. They may demand concrete pronouns, but wouldn't have any problem receiving treatment like typically masculine aggressive support if they feel vulnerable and in certain circumstances (their role could be perceived as feminine-leaning). Or normatively more sensitive and feminine admiration (their role could be perceived as masculine-leaning). Examples are simplistic, but they help to illustrate that non-binary individuals are already treated as males or females gender-wise outside the use of pronouns. Even if the situations are obviously much more subtle than these. And they don't go around rejecting every bit of it, they actually enjoy it when convenient. Feminine-leaning and masculine-leaning roles are also adopted during sex, and obviously not all non-binary (2) individuals reject sex and roles related to it.

But let's assume there are behavioral patterns to treat non-binary people as such: purely non-binary outside female-male... Which are they? Besides the use of pronouns and accepting their feeling as true... Males and females (social gender) already have behavioral overlapping patterns that can be used for both: males and females. And if you don't like someone and how you are treated, you stop interacting with that person. All this means that, in general, the use of pronouns doesn't change the rest of the behavior of people with non-binary (still 2) individuals; and everything boils down to merely acknowledging their feeling through pronouns. Becoming an unjustified special treatment, instead of an adequate adaptation to someone's real and fair necessities.

Their real necessity is to be understood and accepted. Not the pronouns. Which is why pronouns still make them feel better though isn't a valid argument either. The same can be achieved without twisting language.

Identity alone isn't enough to change language, because to be consistent, every identity, regardless of other variables, would deserve specialized pronouns. In this case it's an identification that would always require an extra explanation breaking linguistic conventionalism in a regressive way as well, as there wouldn't be any trait (personality/appearance) that people in any social group would identify as non-binary (2) automatically, to use the preferred pronouns for that individual without asking. Unless you want to consider a trait or behavioral pattern the explanation itself or a phrase in Twitter's bio.

It's like if someone very young who merely feels more mature than others and actually isn't demanded the rest of the people to use Sir or Don when talking to him. Because he feels like an old wise man, even though he actually isn't and doesn't even behave like one. Just feels like one.

Again, all this doesn't mean that the feeling itself is a lie. The individual could still really feel like that, share it with his or her family, friends, etc. and be accepted. Even with a specialist like a psychologist or psychiatrist if it systematically causes distress. But it's not a justification to change language. We would have to adapt language to many individuals with different feelings that don't justify a different gender, instead of individuals adapting to linguistic conventionalism themselves.

Transgender (classic meaning) is a significantly different case. It's absolutely consistent with the concept of social gender and trans people express identifiable traits that justify using different pronouns than the ones we would use for their birth-sex. Linguistic conventionalism isn't broken when they (usually) don't need extra explanations to justify their pronouns, and when the pronouns are consistent with their function.

There is a transition, another variable. Not merely a feeling.

Gender-fluid is very different than the normative patterns I described where one individual can absorb bits of the opposite social gender. It's a more spontaneous roller-coaster of identity, regardless of social context and adaptability. If the person also does adopt characteristic patterns, it's consistent with the concept of social gender. If the person behaves in the same way and only the identification changes, then it makes as much sense to change pronouns as in the non-binary case (2).

Also gender-fluid people should definitely be flexible with the pronouns people use for obvious reasons. And again, it has little to do with how true is the feeling of identification in itself.

What about people who identify, for example, as a man, but dress like a woman? Or people who dress like a woman but have beards and other typically masculine traits? If you misgender them because of visual inference, they can simply say: don't worry, I am not transexual/genderfluid.

Then you can change the pronoun using biological sex as reference, accept the way they are and end of the story. The very mixed ones can perfectly do the same. Actually in their case it would make sense to ask first.

What matters is that there isn't any terminological inconsistency and they admit indirectly they are still in a spectrum; they simply don't follow the current tendency/break canons of gender role, and without trying to force people to use incoherent pronouns.

This is crucially different from implying you are magically outside the spectrum.

Assuming the most reasonable case, where a non-binary person is also very mixed and does consider him or herself in the spectrum. As I said, there isn't a perfect center anyway. And if you feel non-binary in that sense (very mixed in terms of appearance and behavioral patterns), and not because you are magically outside the spectrum, then you should be fine with either pronoun. Otherwise it's terminologically as stupid as calling a racially mixed person (let's ignore that we are all mixed anyway) with a black dad and white mother (or vice versa) non-race or outside race.

To imply there is a perfect center, which would be in the spectrum anyway, you need to attribute arbitrary values of masculinity and femininity to behavioral patterns and visual traits, and demonstrate mathematically that someone non-binary is a perfect 0,5 or in a very tight range (following the analogy I made some time ago we aren't absolutely perfect 1s and 0s).

And that's idiotic. Not only because of the impossibility to attribute such values, but also because they would change while social norms fluctuate. In 3 years you maybe wouldn't be a perfect center anymore for some social groups and would have to admit people can go back to using he or she for you because you are slightly leaning more to one gender than the other. Let alone the fact that the term would still be nonsensical because the rest of people are still non-binary and you are still in the spectrum.

Actually it's obvious this mathematical analogy is imperfect. It's merely to illustrate. A perfect visual analogy would be much more complex. And integrate an overlapping from one individual (in the form of a changing/fluctuant circle, for example) in several spectrums related to immediate/close social contexts.

Not only in relation to femininity or masculinity per se, but also common behavioral patterns. Because as I said, we already integrate patterns to treat women and men in the same way in contexts where gender is virtually irrelevant in the interaction.

Conclusion from this point:

When only gender identity is the criterion to change our treatment to someone, regardless of social gender and/or biological sex, the usual potential change or different treatment are simply pronouns themselves, becoming a meaningless linguistic reverence.

Even if they theoretically show acceptance of said feelings, one can accept someone's feelings and behavioral patterns without twisting language and concepts in a nonsensical way.

On the other hand, if one would accept gender identity as sufficient criterion to establish a gender and the respective pronouns, then we would have to accept all types of nonsensical genders that people already claim to have. Even if not necessarily helicopters.

The second concept of non-binary should be terminologically considered as a feeling related to gender. Not a gender in itself. In the best cases it's true as an identifying-feeling and deserves attention and acceptance, but not as another gender; unless the concept is illogically twisted, making it so loose that it would barely have any use anymore.

When almost anything can be a gender, gender barely means something.

It's also very important to question if people who identify as non-binary are truly becoming more visible, or if there are plainly more because of the interactive normalization I explained in the previous point.

Big Theories vs Picked Knowledge.

Nowadays some people open wikipedia, read that gender is a social construct, and already think they are some type of experts in Social Psychology and can scream in Twitter all genders are valid and people should use even emoji pronouns and whatnot. Without grasping that social gender being a construct doesn't mean that anything can be considered a gender.

I wish myself this was a strawman argument.

Same can happen when people open a scientific article like this one and have the illusion of irrefutable knowledge, when in fact, even the authors themselves need to make a distinction between the feeling of identity in itself and gender.

Am I denying the statistics presented in the article? No.

Am I denying that there are people who identify like this? No.

Am I denying that using pronouns can be positive for them? No.

My stance is that using specific pronouns implies a significant incongruity with the bigger picture: what's actually the most consistent way to look at gender and language. The fact that language evolves and changes doesn't mean that any change is evolutionary, and in this case we can make them feel accepted and loved without twisting language. There are underlying variables and not merely the use of pronouns, as if it magically made them feel good. They feel good because of what they think of people who use them, which is a normalization in itself.

And as I said, one could even use pronouns while thinking NB people are clowns if it's only out of convenience.

Learning that social gender refers to a construct doesn't mean you already understand that it's not constructed arbitrarily out of nowhere, what it actually means regarding personality, how it fluctuates, how it's related to other concepts like status and role, which are the tendencies in social interactions regarding gender in different social groups and cultures, and why...

Etc., etc.

The underlying problem in all this is that people tend to pick knowledge to confirm (ironically a norm in itself from a probable psychobiological tendency), without trying to make sure the picked knowledge still makes sense when looking at the big picture.

This is why big theories will tend to have a higher value than isolated smaller theories in psychology (epistemologically speaking), unless we talk about small theories that complement perfectly each other.

One can always say my big theories derived from wide theories like Foucault's approach to social norms and symbolic interactionism can be wrong. It's true that I could have always missed something and part of them could be false. But the chance to fall in an epistemological inconsistency is much smaller compared to picked knowledge where anything you would like to be true can become valid twisting the interpretation of data or definitions, because there will usually be at least some small evidence that will support it in one way or the other (at least in something as hard to study as the human mind).

We have actually reached a point where scientific articles claim it's patients who have by default more knowledge than experts.


My point ridiculing this paragraph isn't that experts or professionals in health care can't be ignorant or wrong. My point is how it's considered that merely identifying as non-binary would already make someone more knowledgeable about something like gender or the expediency of the use of pronouns. It would be similar to thinking you know more by default about the flu than a doctor or biologist just because you have or think you have the flu.

The empiric evidence from picked studies is still relevant in terms of collected data. What matters, however, is the interpretation. And if people want a whole bunch of evidence regarding social psychology, they could even open a history book and try to understand the big picture of social interactions. Until a consistent and wide opinion or theory is reached. Thanks to stimuli from social psychology too or not.

That's much more efficient than reaching an illusion of knowledge because you read one wikipedia article or one study that confirms non-binary people deserve specific pronouns. (Nothing wrong with the concept of wikipedia in itself, but rather how it's used...).

Sadly in Psychology areas and schools can be especially isolated. Even in my university I could find great experts from an area like psychobiology who wouldn't give 2 shits about social psychology. And vice versa. While technically Psychobiology and Social Psychology are trying to understand a similar object of study, simply from different directions and perspectives. And instead of ignoring each other, they should always try to collaborate and elaborate one complex theory, designing the respective studies to question it. Not just local terms and theories that stop working when looking at the big picture of phenomena.

In any case, it never really was about effort or respect (which is also a construct, but you won't hear the deluded twitter-social-psychologists questioning it when implying you are disrespectful for not wanting to use certain pronouns). If psychology and language are going to evolve leaning to the use of they/them, then so be it. But I don't want to participate or support it because I don't consider it evolutionary at all. I am very critical with psychology precisely because I care about it and consider it crucial in many ways.

The relevant info they/them would carry isn't anymore analogous to the relevant info of he/she for gender, and the expansion of the concept of gender isn't justified.

It's a pointless dilution.

There is also a huge irony in a group of individuals who treat me like a transphobe, call me asshole and whatnot without a real and genuine attempt to even understand my stance (let alone counter-argumenting it), while precisely claiming how inconsiderate is society with non-binary individuals.