So yesterday, I spent the better part of a morning debating with some conservatives I know on Facebook about gender. The debate was difficult, and draining, and toward the end of it, I was not at all my best self, typing in ALL CAPS and taking personal pot-shots. Now, there are reasons for that, as I personally identify as gender-queer, and specifically as non-binary, and I had watched the two people piling on debating me “bro out” over how stupid progressive gender ideology is in their opinion, before, so I was extra salty.

This morning, I decided to watch the “Louder with Crowder” segment titled “THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS: CHANGE MY MIND” and I watched as they broadcast 1) a conversation with one young well-meaning student who couldn’t articulate a coherent worldview on gender that didn’t get reduced to absurdity, and 2) a conversation with a student who themselves were non-binary, but who found themselves getting flustered as Crowder straw-manned their arguments and then said they were “being heated” when they got defensive about him putting words in their mouth.

While I’m proud of the fact that I like to engage with conservatives despite having a radically different worldview, feeling personally attacked BY their ideology and THEN attacked both personally as well as philosophically by way of disingenuous argumentation (straw mans, appeals to authority, and attempts to undermine my validity and intelligence) is too big a snowball to not be crushed under. This reminds me of the necessity of educating people on what it means to have a good-faith debate, but that is another subject for another day.

So, I owe a bit of an apology for lashing out — particularly because, if you aren’t on my side of the issue, it might be harder to see why I was so riled up.

But given that the opening to this argument on their end was this:

Literally calling my self-identification and the position I hold a mental illness. Gee thanks guys.

Because they purportedly 1) don’t relate to “emotionalism” and 2) love facts, I thought it was pertinent to bring the facts of the situation. When I was rightly accused of using a biased or unreliable source to cite that the majority of medical professionals, represented by the American Medical Association, do agree that gender is a primarily psychological category while sex refers to maleness and femaleness biologically, I went to scholar-web and found several peer reviewed articles from credible medical journals and pasted them into the comments section [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] that reflect the research basis on which the medical community took this stance.

Facts, however, are only useful in arguments of good faith, not when one responds by repeatedly hollering about one single doctor he knows who believes THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS AND EVERYONE ELSE IS CRAZY.

*sigh*

Honestly, I’m by no means an expert on gender, and anything I can say about it, I’ll go ahead and admit that Natalie Wynn of ContraPoints says it better:

Don’t click this if you can’t stomach someone being really dramatic and bizarre while also lecturing you…

The problem is, this video will likely deeply offend any hard-headed conservatives well before they hear the beautifully articulated points underneath. Because I have the unique experience of having been a hard-headed conservative at one point in my life, I will try to talk about this in a way I think they might find compelling.

Let’s start with Crowder’s major contention:

BUT THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS!!!!!

Most of us would recognize this as a binary and know immediately that it’s referring to the age old division of individual people into the groups: Males and Females.

Now, it might be tempting to say that this is OK if we’re talking about physical sex. If you’re a man, and trying to make sense of the world looking around, sure, there are people with penises like you, and people without them, not like you. May as well be a man and call everyone else a woman, easy peasy.

However, even looking at biological sex, the data of individual people does not neatly fall into the two XX and XY categories producing feminine and masculine people all of the time. So even here, the binary is a way of taking a bunch of individual data, seeing that it’s bimodal (most of the data falls in one of two places) and creating two separate categories to classify that data. But here we’ve already imposed a schema that ignores the existence of cases that don’t sit very close to the modes — the cases of biologically intersex people. Some people — like Steven Crowder — argue that these are flukes and extreme cases, like a person being born with an extra finger (polydactyly) and that as such, we shouldn’t have to include another category for them in our thinking. I have two issues with this contention.

1) Calling them flukes forces them to choose an identity in one of the modal (most often occurring) positions — male or female- and for intersex people, there may OR MAY NOT be a comfortable fit for their phenotype there. If you contend there are only 2 categories that people come in, and they are unable to find a fit in either one, then you’ve literally labeled them as freaks, not people. By Crowder’s argument, which erases intersex as a legitimate condition, you’d have to talk about them as men or women having something “wrong” with them, which is far more harmful than just saying that there are in fact, a few human sex variants that don’t fit the binary model. So there really are at least 3 categories of sex, and more when you consider the various KINDS of intersex conditions there are *.

2) Polydactyly is about 10x more rare than an intersex condition. Crowder argues that we still define humans as having 10 fingers and toes. I would argue that although “Humans have 10 fingers and 10 toes” is a generalization that is reliable a very high percentage of the time, it isn’t integral to the definition of a human. If it were, he’d be implying that people born with extra fingers and toes aren’t technically “humans”. So should we burn them, then, or what?

So my broader point here is, just because some expressions of humanity are more rare than others, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have better language than “abnormal” or “anomalous” around the fact that that they do exist. If we can create a mental category for people with 6 fingers, we can do the same for intersex and gender queer folks.

The actual prevalence of intersex conditions is roughly 2% according to this peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Human Biology which makes being intersex as common as being a red-head. So if you’re comfortable dividing hair color into categories including red, you should be comfortable defining EVEN SEX as non-binary.

It’s important to note that many intersex conditions exist at the chromosomal level, so even though someone might have a penis OR vagina, they still might have a difference in their chromosomes from the typical male or female human.

While doctors have generally tried to ascertain a dominant sex for intersex people and often assigned them one in cases of ambiguous genitalia, it’s become increasingly obvious that that is an imposition of a fallacious interpretation of their being, by virtue of an often apparent lack of alignment between chromosomes and hormones.

SO THERE’S EXTRA SEXES, BUT WHY ARE THERE INFINITE GENDERS!?!

One reason this debate gets so sticky is that we’ve moved from conflating sex and gender as terms (which we have done on legal documents for years) to separate terms, one of which denotes biology and the other of which denotes forms of socialization and psychology. When I pointed out that this is widely accepted by medical doctors and the formal position of the American Medical Association, my conservative friends who love facts and believe that one doctor’s opinion is a strong epistemic foundation, it was met with disbelief and disagreement.

I mean, I guess you can decide you’re smarter than the body that governs all of medical practice. I’m sure you’ve read all their research and formed a solid conclusion all on your own, right? Now, it’s not that the AMA can’t be wrong- they were in fact, wrong in how they dealt with intersexuality in the past, but their evolution in position is driven by the churning up of new data — and the new policies reflect the broadest collection of — what’s that conservative buzzword again!? FACTS!

One of the reasons the medical community has moved in this direction is largely from research that has generally found that individuals with conditions formerly considered disorders, like Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder, tend have some kind of biological correlate to their mismatch — so even if they aren’t intersex, they may have atypical hormone levels, which produces a differing psychology from the mainstream of their “sex”. Generally speaking, we’ve historically told these people that they are sick and it’s all in their head, only to have medical research come along and say “Oh whoops, you were right, your body is a little bit different.” — and you can imagine that being told you’re crazy when you’re having a legitimate experience based on verifiable facts is a pretty shitty experience.

Another reason is that sociological research has demonstrated that the behaviors and social expressions we typically associate with the sexes can 1) vary by culture and language 2) vary widely within the sexes themselves in ways that exceed the behavioral differences between the two groups and 3) that the expectations of behavior we jump to based on sex-tendencies is harmful to the people whose natural tendencies are different. Much of this comes out of the medicine, research and technology involved in sexual reassignment.

Even when a person doesn’t have an identifiable hormonal or biological difference, denial of their experience as valid produces psychological harm, poor mental health outcomes, social validation of those who would reject their behavior and therefore validation of bullying and violence, and in many cases suicide. It’s not easy being perceived as different, and adopting a transgender or non-binary identity is pretty difficult in today’s society — in addition to risking societal censure and familial ostracization, it’s often physically and literally perilous. When people do it it’s because it corresponds to their lived experience in a deeply profound way. Given that it costs nothing to respect them and their experience, and that providing an accepting environment can measurably increase their well-being and lower their risk of suicide, why act otherwise?

So what one needs to grasp about the separation of gender as a term from sex as a term, is that we needed a word in our language to describe some things that aren’t just our biology. We needed a word that conveys that what we are talking about are the ideas our society carries about what a “man” is and what a “woman” is that isn’t just their genitals or even chromosomes. Whether or not one agrees that Gender is the term that denotes that (which both the APA and the AMA — major scientific institutions do), you still need to be able to engage in a conversation about those expectations in order to understand why someone might IDENTIFY with the pre-set expectations of a gender different from the sex that their body most closely reflects. As a reminder, this is because a person’s social identity results from their perception of themselves as it interacts with the outside world, and reflects their membership in well established social categories, like what religion or political group you belong to. So gender is considered a category that makes up a part of this social identity, and can be chosen, and can even be changed.

SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

Depending on your preferred wave of feminism, it might be considered sexist for me to say that intellectual rigor is a masculine trait. Biologically, it certainly isn’t, but if we’re talking about the society I grew up in and how society treats men and women differently, it definitely was. This is why when my intellectual capacity or expertise on a subject is challenged, it’s a quick way to get me typing in all caps on the internet. Because I grew up around people who listened to men on intellectual topics, and who dismissed the thoughts and opinions of women more readily than engaged with them. While I am a woman biologically and a deeply sensitive one at that, I rigorously studied logic and philosophy in an effort to learn how to even begin thinking outside of my identity. The identity, or “ego” is often the root of emotionally limited thinking, wishful thinking, and post-hoc rationalization of irrational behavior. No person is able to function without the influence of their emotions — the idea that rational thought is separate from human emotions is a fallacy demonstrated by both philosophers and neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio. Human emotions are often heuristic (grouped, or aggregated) representations of subconsciously acquired data. If these emotions are unpacked slowly and their sources are considered, they can lead to better decisions. If left unexamined, emotions can sway you unduly — predominantly when they get triggered by the need to protect your identity.

Having a good grasp of how the ego triggers cognitive distortions and irrational thinking makes it extremely ironic when someone tries to defend a position by asserting, instead of demonstrating, that they hold that position because they are so rational, not emotional, and love facts, while referring to zero facts and dodging several academic fields worth of empirical research.

You don’t get to win arguments by declaring yourself the more rational party, you win by connecting your conclusion to concrete evidence that supports it.

Contrary to popular sentiment in the rural south, the ability to think rationally isn’t actually divided by sex (nor gender, for that matter), nor their degree of emotion. It’s divided by a person’s developmentally acquired ability to set aside their ego, listen to new facts, and adapt their thinking accordingly. This is close to the the definition of a trait psychologists label “Openness” that, ironically enough, tends to predict liberal political views rather than conservative, has been found to positively correlate with (predict) fluid intelligence scores, and does NOT vary significantly by Sex or Gender.

The common association of objective and rational thinking with masculinity is a major facet of my non-binary identity, but I wouldn’t argue that it’s a real difference between the male and female sexes. Though there’s some evidence that even in countries with progressive gender ideologies, there are considerably more men in STEM fields, women in the US are outperforming men in school success factors including college graduation rates. Nonetheless, in my personal experience (not to be taken as a fact of the world), it’s men rather than women who wish to engage in rigorous debate, (perhaps because the women were treated with less respect when they did so in the past?) and because it engages both my intellect and my competitive side, it’s something that feels “Masculine” to me, rather than “Feminine”, and it’s something I do compulsively and often.

I also at various times in my life considered risky jobs like being a police officer or joining the military, I don’t like being coddled or protected as opposed to fighting my own battles, I never liked dolls or playing house very much, don’t enjoy a lot of jewelry or lots of frills and details in aesthetics, and have absolutely no appetite for celebrity gossip. All of these are components of my personality that don’t fit in with “feminine” or “female” stereotypes.

Positing these attributes as definitions of womanhood can and should be construed as extremely sexist — but because sex and gender are different, they aren’t things we should foist upon little girls as expectations, even though they are things you might not be surprised to see in the women being raised in our culture. Consider that women and girls are often guided into these preferences by advertising, the media, and their friends by virtue of their sex, regardless of their genuine interest level. Over time, social reward and reinforcement can account for a lot of human behavior. So for me, I assign these as social attributes of the female gender — the stuff society expects of female bodied people — that I do not identify exclusively with.

I also don’t identify with loving explosions and battles, ignoring my physical appearance completely, f̶e̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶t̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ (Ok, maybe I feel it but I am aware of it and usually try to edit it out of my behavior so I’m not always a complete dick unless I’m right on the internet), being totally flabbergasted by boobs, or enjoying other people’s farts.

Again, sexist if projected on every biological male, but reflective of common tropes associated with the masculine gender . And I don’t fit comfortably into this category either. Chances are, you probably don’t either.

So, as a rational contention from a progressive viewpoint, when someone says there are only two genders or asks how many genders there are, I would gently remind them that gender isn’t exactly a concrete thing that exists and can be counted.

Instead, a gender is a collection of ideas we have about people that we built off of a conception of two distinct sexes, and it’s a label we use to differentiate between types of people regarding a certain set of behaviors: predominantly those related to clothes and appearance, sexuality, power dynamics, and preferences between competition and cooperation.

BUT HOW MANY GENDERS ARE THERE!???????????

The AMA says this about gender: “Gender includes more than sex and serves as a cultural indicator of a person’s personal and social identity.” Social Identity, as we mentioned, has to do with group memberships that are chosen.

So there COULD BE as many genders as there can be interpretable social identities. While that’s arguably infinite because you can choose anything to identify with, it’s not really a social identity until it becomes an intelligible category for people that captures a similar group of traits typically described by gender. I think the answer, from a liberal to a conservative, asking how many genders there are, is that there are approximately three in current mainstream understanding, which roughly tracks with what we know about sex. There’s the masculine gender, the feminine gender, and then the neither category, which is about as deep as the public consciousness is ready for. The next step is coming to understand that individuals will vary widely on almost all aspects of gender — that we all fall on some spectrum in between classic masculine and feminine standards, much like we now understand about sexual preference, because the binary model was never an accurate picture of all of human data, just a model we imposed to simplify our language.

OKAY SO IF YOU SAY YOU’RE A LIZARD, I’M SUPPOSED TO LET YOU GENDER-IDENTIFY AS A LIZARD!?

Sure, every now and then people (well intentioned college students with a cursory grasp of deconstruction) will say someone can gender identify as a lizard. I say, that only makes sense under these conditions: 1) That person makes a distinct effort to look and behave like other lizards (convergent validity with the construct of lizard) and 2) The behavior being described is reasonably prevalent in society such that drawing the category is descriptively useful 3) There isn’t a gender identity that better fits them when describing the majority of their behavior. Gender should generally be understood as somehow related to sex-related behavior expressions, so the way in which they are a lizard should relate to their physical self-expression, mating tendencies, and behavioral tendencies around cooperation vs. competition moreso than a traditional label like male or female, otherwise it’s just a person going out of their way to be a) special and b) annoying. Even if some things are social constructs, they aren’t valid constructs until they become a useful shorthand for an identifiable set of behaviors in common society.

Crowders’ (and many well intended Conservatives’) reflexive denial that the meanings of some words are socially constructed is utter nonsense, and I think conservatives would do well to do some research into the fields of linguistics or NLP, because the way we use language constrains the way we think. If you can’t understand that your thinking is limited by the way language is used, as well as your behavior, then you’re trapped in a box, and trying to keep others trapped there with you. Forcing other people to take on your definitions and your point of view is a form of fascism, and that applies both to the people who want to expand our definitions as well as those we want to preserve them.

The important thing when understanding the power of language is to acknowledge that language doesn’t precede the truth — it’s a tool we use to communicate, and how we use it is, and always has been, up to us as a society. The second important thing to understand is it only really works with consensus. If I say something means something and you just disagree, then we have no possible way to continue talking about that topic until an agreed upon set of terms arrive.

In the Louder with Crowder segment, Crowder straw-mans a non-binary student who asserts that using pronouns other than the one associated with that person’s gender — which, remember, is only intelligible as the label that encompasses their self-expression tendencies and preferred social interpretation, not as a random term with randomly assigned meaning — is an act of violence. He says “So you’re saying it’s a crime?” over and over to fluster them, even though they specifically said it was violence, and not all violence is criminal. This is just plain bullying and lacks intellectual integrity.

Public figures like Jordan Peterson have had a heyday claiming that this exact jump in logic (If misgendering is violence then it’s a crime and you’re infringing on freedom of speech!) is a dangerous march to totalitarian reign, gas chambers and gulags. And in a sense, yes, speech policing is a sensitive topic. But intentionally misgendering someone — calling a non-binary or trans person by pronouns associated with their sex organs but not their presentation and identity — is a way of saying “You are your sex organs and you are who I say you are” — which is pretty much like me calling Steven Crowder a giant penis. Which isn’t violence, is probably not something he would even deny, but also isn’t kind or respectful.

When you intentionally disrespect people who are already fighting for the validity of their identity outside of the limiting structures of the social perceptions of sex-based behavior, you are in fact, reducing them to their genitalia and defending the normal associations with it.

The intent behind calling misgendering violence is that it generally coincides with transphobia or other bullying or marginalizing behaviors these people experience. By denying them this respect, you’re refusing to acknowledge their humanity and self-determination on a footing equal to your own, and you shouldn’t be surprised if they view you as a person who is not approaching them with good will. And given that they are, in a very real sense, disproportionately subject to actual, physical violence and discrimination by people who refuse to respect their identity, you also shouldn’t be surprised if some of them worry that you might subject them to violence or, at a minimum, that your disrespect might encourage others to do so.

For me, I’m less concerned about violence, given that most violence is directed at trans women (male bodied people presenting as feminine), and not female people presenting as masculine. Nonetheless, disrespecting my non-binary identity and calling me a woman feels like you’re generally perceiving me as someone concerned with things I’m not really all that concerned with, like throw pillows, yoga pants and make-up, and while I don’t really think it’s violent, It’s certainly dishonest, forceful, and the behavior of a type of person I don’t really want to hang around.

If you think all you mean by it is that I don’t have a penis and have the ability to become pregnant, I sympathize, but the problem is that when you state that publicly, you are in fact triggering other people’s associations with those terms, and even though it isn’t super fair or logical, you’re misrepresenting me as an individual to others.

This is so much of why I love the non-binary category, it means that my gender isn’t associated with any of the expectations society puts on people with sex-organs, which is ultimately what I want for each of us as individuals in the first place.

The reason this battle is a big deal is because on the list of things people can be mean to others, bully others, and even get potentially violent over, being non-conforming to one’s gender is really really high.

While I’d love to go find more links and stats about transgender and gender non-conforming violence (I found one from the World Health Org., but there’s plenty more, and more), that’s a full post for another day, but do a quick google search and see. Or check your own memory for ever being made fun of for somehow not representing manliness or womanhood as others thought you should, I bet you can think of an example or two. But if nothing else sways you on how hard it is to not conform to gender roles, the HRC reports that the suicide attempt rate among these individuals is by some samples as high as 41%, 10x the rate of suicidal ideation (4%) in the general population.

Be nice to the weird kids, guys. Be nice to everyone. Just don’t be a dick. And remember, reducing someone’s self-expression and social identity to their sex-organs is dick move.

Have a vagina day. (If that sentence doesn’t make sense to you, good.)

___________________________________________________________________

*Currently intersexuality studies report 4 categories based on the number and nature of the chromosomes and the genitalia present, so we’re up to 7 categories in biological sex alone, but there’s some merit to keeping the categories broad enough for daily use, so it might be ok to stick with 3 on our drivers license apps for now.