Is gender a binary or a spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

I've noticed increasingly that in recent times, the concept of gender, and whether it's a binary or a spectrum, has become quite possibly one of the most inflammatory subjects both on the internet and in the real world. Right now, there are increasing numbers of people who identify as "non-binary" or belonging to a "third gender." At the same time, there's been a major push back, especially on the internet, with many arguing in favor of the gender binary and rejecting these new identities.

Personally, I'm conflicted on this issue. I can understand the points that both sides make, but I'm not sure where I stand exactly. So what I want to ask is this:

Do you think that gender is binary, or a a spectrum? Do you think there many different genders, or are there only two? How do you feel about those who identify as "non-binary"?

I do think theres a spectrum involved, that of how much you identify with biological sex, which can identify your gender identity. However whether society sees you as your preferred gender depends on appearance, and that is up to you to maintain, basically you shouldn't call yourself a women if you have a big beard and tons of body hair everywhere. Besides that, I basically think you should be able to identity as whatever gender you wish. As for your second question, I've never personally understood why someone would want to be gender-fluid/androgynous but I've also never stuggled with sexuality so I suppose I shouldn't be an authority on that one.

Of course it's a binary. There are only 2 genders, scientifically. You can identify as whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there are 2 biological genders.

Binary = numbers.

It would be a spectrum if each human were born with their own special gender.

I don't have a problem with people being "non-binary" as long as they don't start to reject basic facts.

But hey, as long as it isn't hurting anyone, it is fine by me.

I think that gender is a spectrum. I think that gender is a continuum that has many different shades to it. I strongly identify as male, so I like to keep my hair as short and I have war helmets that I like to wear on my free time. I also like to speak with a deep voice. I like to sound the gender I identify as.

That goes into the discussion of sex vs. gender, which is quite a debated topic. Sex is defined as binary and determined at birth, while gender is basically what you define it as if I understand it correctly.

Well, according to Monash University:

So, sex would cover things like genitalia, body fat distribution, hair distribution, bone and muscle density, and the like.

Gender would cover things like women have long hair, men have short hair; women's tops have buttons on the left, men's on the right; pink is for girls, blue is for boys; men have names from this list (John, Robert, Andrew, etc.), women from this other list (Joan, Rebecca, Abigail, etc.); and so on.

Based on that, I'd say gender is binary, since most social constructs are binary — human beings tend to default to binary thinking; things are either-or.

Sex, on the other hand, would be a spectrum, since biology rarely lends itself to simple binaries. There are always in-between cases. It's probably not a smooth spectrum — to me, it seems to be two big hills, joined by a valley, and with tails leading off either end; all sorts of cases of in-between or neither, just not many examples of them.

It's a non-debate. The argument is soft-science conceptual semantics vs biology.

Define a human gender other than male or female without using masculine or feminine terms, roles or functions.

Since gender is a social construct, all genders are human.

But, since you ask, here's two I can think of two:

neuter in various languages in which nouns can be masculine, feminine or neuter.

unisex in styles of clothing, in which things like caps or snow jackets are not assigned as men's or women's styles, but are instead unisex.

If you have a d*ck, you're a boy. You can run around feeling like you're Pippi Longstocking or Ivanka Trump, but it doesn't change the fact you're a boy. You can even lob it off like Bruce Jenner, shoot yourself full of hormones, and start dressing like Elizabeth Taylor, but you're still a boy. You cannot shoot eggs out of a Fallopian tube.

If you have a p*ssy, you're a girl. You can have your clitty stretch out to the length of Long Dong Silver's, speak with a voice like Darth Vader's, but you're still a girl. Facial hair and a flat chest doesn't make you a man. You cannot produce sperm. It makes you a woman with a flat chest and facial hair.

Males are chromosome XY, women are XX.

The nature of reality is random particle collision (particles bouncing into each other and producing apparent random outcomes).

That is where the Central Limit Theorem comes from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

One could ask, "is flipping a coin, a binary outcome?"

The answer is, "No".

A coin will land on its side "about 1 in 6000" flips.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping

So, binary does not make sense; it's not the nature of reality.

Both a semantic nonsense and a non sequitur.



That's linguistics, not a human gender.



Clothes are not human either.

Not only have you failed to define any genders, you used masculine and feminine terms in both attempts. Human gender binary upheld.



On how many occasions will the coin fail to land?

I think everyone has a right to their own pursuit of happiness to the extent that said pursuit isn't harming people around and even better if it's not harming themselves either.

When I really think about what's being discussed here its subjective identity pieces. It's like talking about what kind of music you deeply feel, how you like your eggs ie. scrambled, over-easy, sunny-side up, whether you're a tea or coffee person, etc. etc.. Sexual preference, manifestation, or what you feel like best describes your own peronality's mix of masculine and feminine traits only seems like it's that much more important because, regardless of the west not really being an Abrahamic religious place we're still just as freaked out about and hypersensitized on the topic of sex.

That said I don't think anyone has the right to demand that anyone refer to them as 'country fan', 'Jamaican blue drinker', 'over-easy', 'Game of Thrones watcher', 'Danielle Steel fan', etc. etc. and it's absolute insanity that anyone would etch that demand into national law punishable by fines, even worse if its considered hate-speech to inaccurately guess that someone's a country fan and not a metal fan, or a coffee drinker when they're really a tea drinker.

Yes - having self knowledge and knowing your preferences and what you're psychologically made of is a good thing, use it and apply it in your own pursuit of happiness. Also realize - people are apathetic. I know that no one cares how I eat my eggs or drink my coffee, I'm really into music but most of what I listen to people either ignore or flat out admit to not liking because it's in non-mainstream electronic genres, and if I feel any alienation from that - tough ^&*( on me. I think the same applies on other topics as well, otherwise we're all trying to wring our own satisfaction out of society through despotism. A culture can't handle that if any more than a tiny fraction of people are attempting it in practice and far worse if the legislature is foolish enough to weave that into law.

Gender is a chart containing 2 spectrums Female(X) and Male(Y). Everyone is a point.

0 point is someone gender neutral, balanced, features of both sexes can be seen in them but none is strong. Will probably identify as third gender/non binary.
Anybody in I has strong features of both sexes and it's difficult to say whatever he/she is more like a male or more like a female because both features can be clearly seen. Will probably identify as genderfluid or bigender.
Anybody in II is typical male(could also be ftm trans or even a butch). Has strong male features but his female features are weak.
Anybody in III has weak features of both male and female, is more like a kid than anything else. Will probably identify as agender.
Anybody in IV is typical female(could also be mtf trans or even a queer), has clear features of female, weak male.

Male and female features are the stereotypes assigned to the gender. The macho type and the caring mother or whatever it is in your part of the world.

I see myself somewhere in I but not too far from 0.

You're just being deliberately obtuse.

Human societies assign gender to various things — words, clothes, objects, people — on an arbitrary basis. Deal with it.


And language is a product of what? Cows? Coins? Carrots? Quarks?

Language is a product of humans. Gender was originally a grammatical term to refer to the property in certain languages which determined which pronouns (masculine, feminine, or neuter) could be used with which nouns.

Humans created those languages and that grammar, thus it's an example of human gender.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not so.


Who or what else creates clothes and divides them into male and female styles?


You're an idiot.

Masculine and feminine are the terms in which gender is defined, so obviously you have to use those terms when describing concepts of gender.


I already said that gender was a binary concept — though, once you include neuter, it becomes a trianary concept — so I don't know what point you think you're making, other than agreeing with me in a rather snide and needlessly aggressive manner.

Gender is binary.
Sex is a spectrum.

Not in birds. Also in some fish, some crustaceans, some insects (including butterflies and moths), and some reptiles.
In those males are ZZ, females are ZW.
In those species the default form is male, as opposed to mammals and the like which use the X-Y sex determination system, where the default is female.

But the question was asking about gender, not sex. Don't confuse the two.

I'm being deliberately acute, hence my rejection of your substitution of "gender" for "gender".



But these things are not the same thing as human genders, i.e. those assigned to human beings. The deliberate conflation of terms actually flies in the face of the sociological framework it's built upon. Your argument remains semantic fluff.

Furthermore, what the term "gender" describes predates language. The word assignment may be arbitrary (we'll avoid the obvious onomatopoeia sidebar), but that doesn't mean we get to arbitrarily ignore existing meanings.



Products of human beings =/= human beings, except in one very specific instance.



And "fa***t" still refers to a bundle of sticks. That's doesn't eliminate it's newer, derogatory meaning. Gender has been used to refer to biological sex for centuries in English.



But not an example of a human gender.



Whether or not I "like it", it's still a semantic conflation.



Products of human beings are still not human beings.



I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.



But what you're failing to recognise is that you must also use the correct version of gender according to context, hence your confusion between "human gender" and "human gender".



Grammatically, yes. In human beings, not so much.



Needlessly aggressive? Perhaps you've got your contrast or gamma turned up too high. What you choose to infer from my posts beyond my actual intent is entirely your own responsibility. Considering how swiftly you resorted to making personal attacks, I'm content to presume that this is projection on your part.



On that we can agree, with the additional disclaimer that human sexes number two, except for some notable aberrations.



Gender encompasses biological sex, regardless of what feminist theory or certain social sciences have to say on the matter. The two concepts are also informed by one another, and therefore not cleanly separable.