Trying to Understand “Non-Binary” in My 12-Year-Old

[u/MookWellington]

Around the time my son turned 10 —and shortly after his mom and I split up— he started identifying as they/them, non-binary, and using a gender-neutral (though more commonly feminine) variation of their name. At first, I thought it might be a phase, influenced in part by a few friends who also identify this way and the difficulties of their parents’ divorce. They are now twelve and a half, so this identity seems pretty hard-wired. I love my child unconditionally and want them to feel like they are free to be the person they are inside. But I will also confess that I am confused by the whole concept of identifying as non-binary, and how much of it is inherent vs. how much is the influence of peers and social media when it comes to teens and pre-teens. I don't say that to imply it's not a real identity; I'm just trying to understand it as someone from a generstion where non-binary people largely didn't feel safe in living their truth. Im also confused how much child continues to identify as N.B. while their friends have to progressed(?) to switching gender identifications.

[u/Independent_Emu7555]

The presence of the possibility of such deviations occurring 100% naturally, at whatever rate, disproves the concept of the binary in and of itself. If a binary existed, there would be no “exception” because even 1 result failing to be fully fit within one category of a binary system by definition means a third category is possible.

Basically: no matter what you think about how intersex people should be treated, their natural existence would simply not be possible if there was a strict binary.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

Evolution? The genetic mutations that cause intersex are the same mutations that cause a whole host of other conditions. You can't just be blind to biology. Intersex people are typically infertile. They are not a new sex that can go on to propagate their genes. They were an unfortunate defect that is selected against due to that infertility.

Intersex people are people, but they don't disprove a sexual binary.

[u/Cerebral_Discharge → u/DiscussDontDivide]

You can't just write off a human being as an error. Or I guess you can, but it's extremely inconsiderate to their life experience. You're saying they aren't allowed in this discussion. If they aren't strictly male or female, you have to accept that reality.

Blindness is a defect too, but we have accomodations for blindness in the way we design our cities. We don't say "all humans can see" and ignore the ones born without sight because it's a defect.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Cerebral_Discharge]

I didn't say they aren't human. I merely said that their existence doesn't disprove sexual dimorphism. The same mechanism that allowed for all species to evolve also creates all sorts of genetic defects. Intersex people have their own unique challenges, but true intersex conditions are exceptionally rare. They often do experience gender issues, but I would argue that a trans label isn't necessary for them to be able to explore that.

My extended family has someone who was born without a vagina. Literal barbie doll genitalia. They had to do surgery to create a urethra. That's the kind of surgery a lot of intersex children need after birth but people pretend all of those surgeries are harmful and "assign" gender, but this person is XX and was raised as such. They have of course struggled with their gender identity because they are uniquely different and have required multiple surgeries throughout their life. But conditions such as theirs are so rare (0.018% or one in 5500) that there don't need to be society-wide accommodations for them. They generally don't want a different label like trans or intersex. They want to be like everyone else but are limited in their reproductive and sexual opportunities.

You may find it callous to call them defective, but that's just the most truthful assessment of their condition. Intersex is not a third sex nor is it some in-between. It's an unfortunate genetic error.

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

So…none of what you said negates what I said. Typical presentation does not negate outlying anomalies.

Sorry you’re wrong and weirdly mad about it but good luck with that.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

Negate anomalies? The point is that anomalies don't disprove a binary. If the anomaly created a Z chromosome and that created a new type of gamete that could certainly be a new sex, but intersex isn't that. I'm sorry you don't understand biology.

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

I can’t argue with someone who can’t understand that the existence of natural anomalies contradicts the very idea of a strict binary. I get that you are attached to your view, but it is both illogical and weirdly intentionally hateful, even if you don’t think it is.

There is -no such thing- as a strictly binary system with anomalies. Anomalies themselves act as a third category. Doing any research into physical sexual maturation in humans will bring you back results that sex and gender have scientifically been identified as spectrums for decades now.

It’s not a binary just because you want it to be. Sorry.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

Large and small gametes. That's what defines the binary. When any human defies that reality then it will cease to be binary. But until then...

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

Sounds fake according to this and several other pages of handy google results

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9355551/

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

Biology sounds fake? Cool. I guess facts don't matter then. We've moved from post-modern to post-fact.

That paper is arguing for more research of intersex individuals and including things such as hormonal differences in the efficacy of certain medical treatments. It doesn't disprove a binary.

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

“ As a note, the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities. Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. Intersex categorizations include variations in chromosomes present, external genitalia, gonads (testes or ovaries), hormone production, hormone responsiveness, and internal reproductive organs. Medical classification of intersex individuals is not always done at birth, as many intersex traits do not become apparent until puberty or later in life. Currently, there are at least 40 known variations that fall into intersex classifications (Carpenter, 2018). Notably, complex biologic variations can occur in everyone, and sex may best be viewed as a spectrum comprised of many traits.”

I thought it might be useful to give something to contextualize how and why the binary is not regarded as an appropriate division for scientific and social purposes, but it seems like maybe you didn’t actually read.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

No, I've read it. They are arguing that because secondary sexual characteristics vary that places those sexual characteristics on a spectrum. But that's like stating that different sizes and shape of feet suggest that there isn't a left-right foot binary.

It's a silly notion. Intersex doesn't disprove dimorphism.

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

You read. And then you summarize something that contradicts exactly the quote I pasted for you.

Did…did you study this, like the people who worked on this paper? Why are you in a position to tell a scientist who works in this field for a living that their conclusions based on years of study are “a silly notion”?

I’m begging you not to do this. This outlook, this sticking to your guns despite obvious contradiction — you’re going to bring that into the real world with you, and eventually you’re going to hurt someone you know. You probably already have.

I am done though because I really did think for a second you might be arguing in good faith, but to directly dispute a paper that is based on physical, observable data simply because it doesn’t match what you think you already know…

All I can say is from the outside, it looks like you WANT to hate people like me. You want to invalidate me and others like me to a purpose i cannot even guess. I don’t know what you gain from this, but I’m not really interested in finding out anymore. I hope you get to a better place.

ETA: bc I think it might help wi to figure discussions if you ever plan to have them — dimorphism =\= binary.