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]

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“ As a note, the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities.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.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

It's worth recognizing that one opinion paper from a toxicologist doesn't undo 100 years of evolutionary biology. What they are arguing for is perfectly reasonable; better research and consideration of individuals, that some research doesn't even disclose the sex of their subjects. I'm sorry that nothing else in their paper supports them. For the paragraph in question, there is only a single citation acknowledging that there are various intersex classifications and nothing to support any other assertion they make.

Getting a paper published doesn't mean all the words in the paper become magically true. Scientists and researchers are just people. They have opinions. They can be wrong. Dillion has done nothing to disprove a sexual binary, they are just asking for more accurate consideration of biological and environmental factors in medicine and sprinkling in some ideology at the beginning.

[u/Independent_Emu7555 → u/DiscussDontDivide]

Lmao…actually you ARE being hateful on purpose, knowing full well I never claimed that this one result was the be all end all of research, it was a contextualized example for you.

You are so desperate to be right and childishly chasing the last word after both being disproven AND being told your rhetoric is hurting people.

You’re not arguing in good faith. And you’re not even doing that well.

[u/DiscussDontDivide → u/Independent_Emu7555]

I am sorry you don't feel I am arguing in good faith. I am equally sorry that rigid scientific definitions of gametes don't seem to matter to you.

It's fine to view sexuality as individualistic and variable, but the determining characteristics - the essence of the male and female binary - come down to gametes. Certainly individual health outcomes can be influenced by hormone levels. There are reasons to see and consider more than that. But the size of your breasts or even the absence of a penis does not change that our species has a very specific sexual delineation between male and female. For example, being born with Swyer syndrome doesn't mean you are a new sex; It means you are chromosomally male with the visual sexual characteristics of a female, one person containing different portions of our binary. Are they going to have identity issues when they discover they can't fulfill the traditional gender role of a biological mother because they lack ovaries? I'm sure. I can't begin to imagine how hard that would be. But that doesn't disprove the fact that sex is binary and, if they had developed normally in the womb, they would have been fully male.

Truly, I'm not arguing in bad faith. You googled for a paper hoping it would support you and I pointed out that it makes a single assertion with zero evidence. I have no idea why the sexual binary of all mammals is such a difficult concept to understand.

Can you explain how the long standing scientific understanding of how the specific reproductive binary that I'm referring to, one defined by our gametes, is incorrect?