Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[methylatedspirit]

A strict and literal reading of that would imply that genderqueer is one set, and nonbinary is another, and neither overlap. No genderqueer person is a nonbinary person, and no nonbinary person is a genderqueer person. As a Euler diagram, that's just 2 non-overlapping, non-touching circles.

But what I've heard is that genderqueer is the superset of nonbinary, that it contains all of the non-normative gender identities. All nonbinary people are genderqueer, but not all genderqueer people are nonbinary. Going back to the Euler diagram, there's one circle "genderqueer" and another circle "nonbinary". "Nonbinary" is inside "genderqueer".

There's a contradiction here. They can't be both true under this reading.

Then again, a looser interpretation would imply the second statement (genderqueer is the superset of nonbinary), which only came to me when I thought about it and realized that you probably meant something else. I'm hoping it's the loose reading rather than the strict one.

[Rolan7]

I'm really not an expert, but I'll try to weigh in anyway since I consider myself non-binary.  I would not call myself "genderqueer", for a couple of reasons.

Genderqueer: Describes anyone whose gender identity is non-normative.
Nonbinary: Describes anyone whose gender identity does not conform to the gender binary.

Which are identical, as far as I'm concerned. "Non-normative" is "anything that is outside the norm", which then just leads to "outside the gender binary", which leads directly to "nonbinary". They are functionally identical, with the caveat that it is by these definitions. A different set of definitions would likely yield different results.

This may sound absurd, but I don't accept the idea that there's anything normative about the supposed gender binary.  Very few people fit fully within the stereotype of any gender, almost everyone has both male and female aspects.  I believe the definition of "genderqueer" you provided could be applied to almost everyone, or maybe no-one, but it'd be very tricky to apply it to people on a case-by-case basis.

Fortunately it's not a label you apply to people, but one which people adopt for themselves.  If they *feel* like their gender identity isn't "normal", that makes them "genderqueer".

I've felt that way in the past but I've decided I don't feel abnormal, so the word isn't for me.  I'm also a bit uncomfortable describing myself as queer in any way.  It's a reclaimed slur and while I don't mind anyone using it, I have bad memories of it.

Your definition of non-binary seems alright, except that it's also a term that people choose.  An androgynous man can't be declared NB just for not conforming to his gender.  Typically someone is NB because they don't strive to be either gender of the binary, that's all.  Some might additionally be uncomfortable being considered a man or woman, though that's not required.  Some enbies are happy with any pronouns, others prefer neutral language or personal pronouns.

There's a related concept, gender-fluidity.  These are people who change gender fairly often, usually at the start of the day.  Often this is done within the gender binary, though not necessarily.  So someone can be genderfluid, NB, both, or neither.

Okay I hope that was at least somewhat accurate and maybe even helpful!

[methylatedspirit]

Points taken. I'll try to compress them into my brain's native format and update those definitions accordingly.

I mean, there's gender identity and then there's gender expression, right? And my understanding is that the current view of it is that since at least identity is self-given, they are completely disconnected. They should not be conflated, even if they tend to be at least somewhat related for most people. It's a dangerous game to play if you were to conflate them, is my understanding. What I did was inadvertently conflating them by forgetting that identity is self-given.

This may sound absurd, but I don't accept the idea that there's anything normative about the supposed gender binary.  Very few people fit fully within the stereotype of any gender, almost everyone has both male and female aspects.

There are many people who believe themselves to be fully male/female, yet their gender expression isn't full on masculine/feminine because they believe that's not something worth doing. Not that I think it would be possible to be fully in one direction; I think constitutes as masculine and what is feminine is mostly a bunch of arbitrary, self-contradictory lines in the sand. And those lines aren't even consistent across cultures and time periods. It's a bit of a bullshit concept to me. I see no problem with believing that one is fully male/female, but I do have issue with trying to enforce these inconsistent gender roles, especially on others.

[Parsely]

How hard-coded is sexuality? Is it entirely biological, or is there an environmental factor to it? If it's at least partially environmental, at what point does it lock in? To avoid sounding like an ass, I know that attempting to remove the gay from someone is futile at best, and a hate crime at worst, so the answer to that last question is likely to be either "there is no environmental factor; not applicable" or "really early".

My sexual attraction to people has changed a lot throughout my life, there are some body parts I found sexually repulsive when I was younger that I find very attractive now, but other things are more consistent. There's definitely another timeline where I live my whole life thinking of myself as straight, I don't think I could have figured a lot of these things out without other people to talk to about it.

Sexuality and gender aren't real per se, they're a social construct, so to search for environmental factors that cause these things is futile. The concept of sexuality is a really recent invention, this is why it's impossible to actually say whether ancient people were gay or straight or pansexual or asexual or so on, because these particular ideas hadn't even been conceived of yet. The concept of sexuality is so entrenched now that it seems like it's existed forever, but it hasn't, only sexual attraction is a constant. I know that's a very small distinction, but it's an important one, because if you try reading about the sexual norms of any ancient society while trying to box them into homosexuality or heterosexuality you'll miss out on how nuanced sexual attraction can be.

[methylatedspirit]

The concept of sexuality is a really recent invention, this is why it's impossible to actually say whether ancient people were gay or straight or pansexual or asexual or so on, because these particular ideas hadn't even been conceived of yet.

Interesting. When did the modern concept of sexuality develop into what it is now?

Also, what you're saying is that it's impossible to honestly say for an ancient person, "this guy exhibited homosexual behavior", and then conclude "this guy is gay", without also saying "according to our current ideas of sexuality" and then "it is impossible to classify this person because we don't know what system (if any) they used, therefore it is very hard to say with any certainty". No wonder historians always say that 2 same-sex people who lived together, slept in the same bed together, and so on, were "very good friends" rather than saying they were "lovers". It's just not possible to conclusively say anything. It's intellectual honesty, not a denial of sexuality.

[heydude6]

The concept of sexuality is a really recent invention, this is why it's impossible to actually say whether ancient people were gay or straight or pansexual or asexual or so on, because these particular ideas hadn't even been conceived of yet.

Interesting. When did the modern concept of sexuality develop into what it is now?

It's been around since the book of Leviticus I believe, if not earlier. So quite a long time. At least the criminalization of homosexual acts was.

It didn't happen all at once though. The greeks and their homosexual pederasty came after that book, and the japanese were practicing Shudo sometime after the first millennium. Long story short, blame the bible for our poor understanding of sexuality.

[delphonso]

I think that only refers to the act of homosexuality, not the idea of "being" homosexual.

Greece and Shudo show that sexuality as a part of your character didn't really exist and instead was an action - something to be participated in.

[feelotraveller]

I don' t think that's quite right.

For example there was quite a large anxienty in Greece about grown men taking the passive position in same-sex couplings and relations.  There was a popular prejudice against them.  On the other hand what we concieve of as man-boy relations were very much esteemed (qualified by, that they happened under certain circumstances).

Certainly sexuality is a shifting field. It hasn't stopped moving.

[delphonso]

Good point.

[Parsely]

delete

[feelotraveller]

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above.  What I would add is that from my reading it seems that for the Greeks the important part wasn't essentially about the sex at all but rather something more like what we would dominance, control or rule. To put it rather crudely it was more about who wore the pants in the relationship, allbeit this being mapped over the axes of passivity and penetration. Their overall concern was with the formation of 'citizens' the elite aristocratic slave owning part of the population who took on all roles of governance. Female same-sex relations although occurent are marginalised in the historical records of the time, something that persists throughout later history as well, symptomatic of a smaller impact on public life.

Extending beyond that it is worth mentioning that what has been recorded historically tends to be that which is culturally dominant (hence the prevailing concern being 'masculine' sexuality).  How individuals outside of the mainstream formed their sexuality is rarely captured, or at best captured through a distorted lens of abhorence, perversion and deviance.  Think of witches.

On top of this, there are unique sexual norms throughout the pre-modern world, so here's my question: What were the norms outside of Europe and Ancient Greece?

Chasing down the mention delphonso made of Shudo I found this page interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan
(Particularly for the rather rapid - in historical terms - transition in the way the sexual field was organised.)

[Ghills]

There were terms for homosexuals in ancient China at various points. 'Cut-sleeve' was one term for gay men, and I think there were a couple others. There's also a god of homosexuality, mostly male homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu%27er_Shen

And at different points & places in East Asia there was something like lesbian formalized relationships - I think flower marriage or something similar was the term? - and male formalized relationships.  They weren't considered the same as male-female marriages in terms of joining families & the various religious practices, and weren't expected to be life-long romantic partnerships AFAICT. Procreation to continue the family name is a really important part of East Asian culture and religion, and pretty much everyone was expected to do so eventually even if they had a multi-year gay relationship first. There were/are also various schools of thought that considered homosexuality unacceptable, and at various times suppressed it.

I'm just a person who's picked stuff up on the internet, not a historian, so YMMV with the details of all this.

TL;DR Lengthy, complicated history of this stuff in East Asia. People like to go 'shudo! cut-sleeve! it was known & accepted' or 'ye olden times woulde never!', but it's always more complicated than that.

ETA: Yes, the dominance was a HUGE part of it for the Greeks & cultures that inherited from them, like the Romans. Equal loving relationships between 2 men were extremely scandalous in those cultures.

[feelotraveller]

For Indigenous Americans the norms seem to have been many and varied.  Good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit  Although I've read some about it in the past (but European sources...) I don't think that I'm in any position to speak about it.

[Naturegirl1999]

Random Question: Why are napkins called napkins?
Google’s answer, nappe=Old French for tablecloth + map (English) + kin (English)

[scriver]

In Swedish they are called "nose cloths"