You either used a bad example, or don't understand your terms. There's nothing pertinent about non-binary you could possibly glean from studies, because it's cultural. What someone feels about their identity isn't the sort of thing you can create a science around.
This is precisely why someone would call you a bigot; Oxford defines the term thusly:
> a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
The belief in this case being that your opinion of their identity, based on the studies you have read, is more relevant to their truth (or anyone's) than their feelings about their identity. As far as some of us are concerned, it isn't.
This isn't a left-vs-right matter, either. That framing establishes factional conflict where there could be simple misunderstanding, which isn't terribly productive.
Really, the issue at hand is that you feel like you should get to make jokes about people's identity, and others feel like joking about people based on their identity is rude so they call you out on it. It just happens that there are enough people who feel that way that being ostracized by them stings. Your options are to not do it or accept that a large portion of society will think you're a dick.
> The belief in this case being that your opinion of their identity, based on the studies you have read, is more relevant to their truth (or anyone's) than their feelings about their identity. As far as some of us are concerned, it isn't.
But why should I take someone's view of their identity without question? Why, and to what extent, am I obliged to uphold and reinforce someone's self-perception? And why on some issues but not their race, height, age, etc.?
Saying it's a "cultural issue" or a "social construct" doesn't help here. "Social construct" does not mean an individual gets to decide unilaterally - quite the opposite in fact! A social constructed category is one which society decides.
Nor does "socially constructed" mean something is arbitrary. Language is socially constructed, but that does not mean we can change anything we want about a given language without consequence.
> Really, the issue at hand is that you feel like you should get to make jokes about people's identity, and others feel like joking about people based on their identity is rude so they call you out on it.
Presuming to know someone else's motives better than they know themselves is not persuasive.
> But why should I take someone's view of their identity without question?
Basic respect of others involves at least paying lip service to their preferences (and I realise it’s not a preference but I don’t have the correct language here), or ideally genuinely respecting other people.
You don’t have to do it, but it’s awfully rude and in cases can be quite a nasty thing to not respect their wishes. Why not do the right thing? How much does it really hurt you to do so (not how much does it irritate you, that’s not really relevant here)?
Ideally you try respect the, and they forgive and accept mistakes on others part. Both people should try be kind to one another.
Whenever I ask these questions, this is always the response I get. It's really frustrating because it's really a non-answer that isn't at all helpful.
Firstly, do you think I go around taunting people about their self-perceptions of their gender? Even if it wasn't something I could be fired for (which it is) I don't actually take delight in causing other people psychological distress. I am asking these questions here, in this forum, because I want to hear better reasons other than "it's the nice thing to do".
Secondly, I listed several cases where your rules of politeness don't apply and aren't the norm - how are those different? This whole "take people's identity claims without question" works in some limited contexts, but breaks down in so many different cases that it really isn't a generalizable moral principle. At best what you propose is a useful tactic for having pleasant water cooler conversations with strangers and acquaintances. It is not a solution for the rest of life where our identities have important implications for how we relate to each other.
Thirdly, that social etiquette is the only justification you provide suggests you understand our acceptance of these identity claims is merely a social fiction. Now, I am a well-socialized adult, which means I understand how often little fictions, little white-lies grease the gears of society. And like I said previously, I don't like to cause others undue distress. But I also think forcing other people to lie (by threatening their job, for example) to be dehumanizing and immoral in its own right.
If someone says "I identify as a woman and prefer female pronouns", it's not clear to me what it is that you'd want to 'question' anyway. If the person is, for example, a colleague, why would you care about their anatomy or what gender they were assigned at birth?
That site makes some obviously false statements (e.g. about what 'sex' is).
> What questions do you have that are not answered in this sort of material?
Allow me to quote myself:
> But why should I take someone's view of their identity without question? Why, and to what extent, am I obliged to uphold and reinforce someone's self-perception? And why on some issues but not their race, height, age, etc.?
None of these questions except the first have been addressed, and the answer to the first was wholly inadequate as I explain up thread.
> If someone says "I identify as a woman and prefer female pronouns", it's not clear to me what it is that you'd want to 'question' anyway. If the person is, for example, a colleague, why would you care about their anatomy or what gender they were assigned at birth?
Again, I'm not going to be needlessly confrontational with a colleague, but I still don't believe their identity claim (I believe they feel that way, I just don't think that feeling is has much bearing on my beliefs). And while I will comply with their pronoun requests, I do care that I am being expected to lie, and there are limits to how far I am willing to go to preserve the fiction.
It's important to be kind to everyone. Anyone "skeptical" of a trans person really ought to mind their own business. I agree with you there.
To play devil's advocate, some identities have less currency in current society. See "Neopronoun" [1] for examples. To lliamander's point, there is a gray area where not everyone is going to feel comfortable with unfamiliar gender constructs. If the rule is to accept everybody's identity at face value, then that closes down any space to feel uncomfortable calling someone "kitten," to use an extreme example.
You are indeed using extreme examples. This is not the sort of thing that is causing people to get shouted at on twitter.
I'd be interested to know if you can link to a single example of someone insisting that they be referred to using a neopronoun (and not accepting e.g. they). Here, for example, is a discussion of neopronouns on r/nonbinary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/comments/k7hegi/can_someo... I don't see anyone getting canceled for expressing a degree of skepticism about neopronouns.
I also think you're being slightly disingenuous in talking about 'accepting people's identity at face value' as if it was being proposed as an absolutely rigid rule. No rule of social interaction is completely rigid or without exception. If you really have a reason to think that someone is being dishonest or disingenuous about their gender identity then you don't necessarily have to go along with whatever they tell you. But if you are not inherently unwilling to believe trans people in general, how often is that scenario
going to come up?
My point in using the extreme example is not to suggest that people are insisting on their use. I chose a fringe example, for which it is socially acceptable to express skepticism, in order to illustrate the point that there are gray areas in how society validates some identities and is less inclusive of others.
In the link you provided, one Redditor "struggles to stay progressive about" neo-pronouns. Another Redditor considers such skepticism to be "extremely gatekeepy and transphobic."
I don't have any reason to believe that someone preferring kitten-folk pronouns is being dishonest or disingenuous, even in this more extreme example.
But what is the principle under which some identity claims are accepted more than others? I have my own thoughts, but I'm curious to get yours. Do you think there is room in society for people on occasion to feel uncomfortable with someone's proposed identity?
Obviously there is not some simple set of rules that will help you to navigate every difficult question relating to personal identity. But now you are talking about hypotheticals, not real problems that occur in choosing a suitable pronoun for someone in a realistic situation.
I’m highly skeptical that there are people who go through life getting angry with every person who won’t call them ‘kitten’. But if you know of any actual examples of this, feel free to provide them.
It’s sad that debates about issues that affect real trans people so often get sidetracked into these irrelevant hypotheticals. This isn’t an academic debate. We don’t have to solve all the edge cases before we can start doing the right thing in the common case.
All too often in these discussions, one side is just saying to be kind to everyone, while the other insists on a philosophical debate, so they end up talking past each other. I would hope that someone learning about trans people is able to update their beliefs about gender: “I used to believe that gender is always tied to sex, but there seems to be a sizeable majority of people for whom this is not the case, and so I will update my beliefs and learn.” Anybody who isn’t capable of this is honestly stubborn, and there are also assholes who go out of their way to harass or debate this topic in contexts where they shouldn’t. The majority of discussion around gender should focus on these points and being humble about your beliefs and kind to others.
But these are all points agreed on by myself, GP, and GGP comments. The question you replied to asked, “Yes, we should be kind to people and refer to people how they prefer. But, there are some non-binary identities that I don’t have buy-in for. I will of course refer to people by their preferred pronouns to be kind, but can anyone give another reason?” There is a place for this kind of conversation, too, on occasion.
You can see that lliamander doesn’t actually agree with all of those points from replies upthread (they are being asked to “lie”).
> But, there are some non-binary identities that I don’t have buy-in for. I will of course refer to people by their preferred pronouns to be kind, but can anyone give another reason?
In the general case your question answers itself. If you don't believe that someone is really (e.g.) a woman, then obviously there is no reason to refer to them using their preferred female pronouns except general politeness and kindness.
If I understand correctly, you are concerned about cases where someone does not accept either 'they', 'he' or 'she' as acceptable pronouns. I would urge you to find a real example, as discussing such cases in the abstract based on Wikipedia articles is frankly ridiculous. But again, the answer to your question in the abstract is obvious. If you don't believe that the person's identity is real, then you can either use their preferred pronouns to be polite – or not.
I fail to see any real philosophical issue that's raised here, given that you already accept that gender and biological sex are not inextricably linked. I guess there's the question of "How do I tell if someone's reported identity is real?", but that seems to be just a special case of "How do I tell if someone is being honest?". The answer is of course that you do so using your general nous.
> that seems to be just a special case of "How do I tell if someone is being honest?"
Is it that simple? Nobody is doubting the honesty of anyone involved. The real matter is there is a cultural tradition called gender, and some people see it as a flexible thing, and to others it’s not, or less so.
You linked to the HRC FAQ, so you must have felt it was relevant to what lliamander was saying. I’m curious what information it contains that could convince someone to be more flexible in their gender definition? What would you say to someone who doubts the validity of non-binary identities? What would it take to convince you that those “extreme,” to reflect your language, neopronoun-based identities are real and valid?
> If I understand correctly, you are concerned about cases where someone does not accept either 'they', 'he' or 'she' as acceptable pronouns.
That’s not what I said at all. I’m not sure how you got that impression. I brought up neopronouns to show that most people have a degree of inflexibility in their conception of gender. These examples you’re asking for are besides the point.
Edit: Do you see how I’m using devils advocate? I personally believe that transgender identities are real and valid, for whatever that’s worth. But if you consider an extremely liberal position on gender, it’s useful to see how you react to it.
>I brought up neopronouns to show that most people have a degree of inflexibility in their conception of gender.
People's objections to neopronouns are usually practical and linguistic in nature rather than stemming from any particular inflexibility about gender. I don't really doubt that some people have gender identities that fall completely outside the usual male/female classification scheme. What I do doubt is that any significant number of these people think that the pronominal system of any given language must necessarily encode the relevant conceptual aparatus in its morphology. After all, there are plenty of languages where pronouns don't have gender at all. If someone is talking about you in Chinese, then 'tā' is all you're getting – and who could reasonably complain about that? That's not to say that I'm reflexively (tee hee) opposed to all neopronouns. Adding additional gender-neutral pronouns to some languages might make sense, conceivably.
I can see how it would be nice to have a general argument that would prove to a skeptic that any arbitrary non-binary identity was 'valid'. However, there are a couple of reasons why I don't think this is a reasonable thing to ask for. First, different identities are different. If the 'validity' of a given identity comes into question, then one has to argue on a case-by-case basis. Second, while it is almost certainly very rare for people to be delusional or dishonest about their gender identities, it is clearly possible in principle. Thus, the requested argument would either be an argument to a false conclusion, or would have to presuppose the honesty and sanity of the relevant person, at which point it would beg the very question that is usually at issue.
> I'd be interested to know if you can link to a single example of someone insisting that they be referred to using a neopronoun (and not accepting e.g. they).
Read the HRC FAQ you just linked to in the previous comment. It includes this:
> Some transgender and non-binary people do not identify with the gender binary and prefer not to use pronouns typically associated with men (he/him) or women (she/her). Instead, they may prefer if people simply use their names, use gender neutral pronouns such as “they/them” or use other pronouns such as “fae/faer” or “ey/em.”
I meant a real example of someone refusing to accept any of he/she/they as an acceptable choice of pronoun. So much of this debate is based on trans people being truculent in someone’s imagination.
> Whenever I ask these questions, this is always the response I get. It's really frustrating because it's really a non-answer that isn't at all helpful.
Do you think it might be possible that you keep getting this answer because you are asking why no one respects your opinion that you don’t need to respect other opinions? You’re kinda coming from a hypocritical ground on the root argument here.
So far my experience has been that, no matter how respectfully I dissent from modern views of gender and sex, the only level considered "acceptable" is to not express my dissent at all.
I don't really have time for some side discussion about my level of propriety. Let's either discuss the object-level issue or be done.
Respect is earned, otherwise it's meaningless. And who said this is the "right thing"? Why does it matter how much it "hurt"? All you're doing is saying that one group must always be "respected" at the cost of the others agency. This is ridiculous and dystopic.
People have the freedom to behave and accept whatever they want. What you're talking about is manners, politeness, and civility. And sure, people should be civil, but civility doesn't mean acceptance without question either and should never come at the cost of freedom. The moment you do so, you've lost both.
Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level. I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet on my run not because they saved five children from a burning building, but because they're people I ran into today. That's the right thing to do. Sure, I don't put the person that I said "Good Morning" on some bright pedestal and worship their feet, but I still treat them with respect.
To call someone by the name they prefer and the pronouns they prefer and not being a dick to them is pretty basic, and it's not dystopic to expect people to do so.
> "Respect isn't earned in polite society at some base level."
Polite society requires politeness. Manners. Decorum. Civility. Not respect. These are different words for different concepts and should not be conflated.
Respect is earned based on your knowledge of that person. Why would you respect random people when you know nothing about them? What if they were murderers? Would you respect them less? If so, why? Because its new knowledge about them that caused a new score, therefore zero knowledge = zero respect until you learn enough to make an assessment. I can also be polite with a murderer but not respect them; see the difference?
> "I say "Good Morning" to the people I meet ... because they're people ... That's the right thing to do."
What's right about it? What if they didn't want to talk to you? A lack of engagement is not wrong.
> "name ... and the pronouns they prefer"
Preferences do not overrule rights and freedoms. The point is why should someone accept an identity without question - and both you and the other user made the same argument that it's "the right thing to do".
But that means not accepting identity without question is wrong, which therefore removes the rights and agency of one group (to question) the preferences of another. Your rights are my responsibility; your right to question my identity is my responsibility to accept that my identity is open to questioning.
That's why those arguments are meaningless. They may sound good but they fail to hold any logical consistency. Expectations of civility are more than enough for society to function, however as soon as you mandate civility at the cost of freedom them you will end up with neither.
Presuming to know someone else's motives better than they know themselves is not persuasive.
Saying that people shouldn't presume to know your motives about a joke when you're talking about mocking people's self identity is hilariously hypocritical.
"Don't assume things about me when I'm mocking people I've made a massive assumption about!"
Just for clarification, I'm not vimy. But further more, he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our society (and presumably related concepts around gender identity) because he concludes it is nonsense.
Pksebben is not arguing with vimy about whether the concept of "non-binary" is meaningful or coherent; Pksebben is merely making the accusation that vimy is rationalizing his desire to mock other people.
If I say you have an incoherent view of the world, and you claim that I only think that because I'm a mean person who wants to hurt people, then I'm not going to find you persuasive.
he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our society
You can't separate the two things though. Mocking a belief is the same as mocking people who hold that belief. If someone says "I am a man" and someone else says "Men don't exist" then it's entirely fair to say the second person is attacking the first. They are. Maybe that's OK under the guises of free speech though.
You can't then also say that the first person should be free to say what they want without acknowledging that the second group should be able to call them out for it (aka cancel them). There's no reasonable way for the first person to have the freedom to say what they like without the second group also being able to say what they like.
Cancelling just means that the first person is scared of the consequences of the second person being upset. Well, tough luck. If you're scared of the consequences of your actions then you don't get to do those actions.
You can separate the two things, most people are multidimensional. I have a lot of friends that I respect who hold abhorrent beliefs.
You can say that the first person should be free to say whatever they want, and that the people affected by it should be able to say whatever they want, that's completely irrelevant to the issue.
Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues.
You cannot both claim there is free speech (the principle) and that it's fine that people get fired for what they say, it is fundamentally incompatible.
> Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues.
Tell a racist joke at work, and there are good odds you'll get fired. Tell a sexist joke at work, and odds are good, you'll get fired. Are you going to argue that freedom of speech should prevent you from being fired for telling a racist or sexist jokes?
Three points with regards to that scenario you laid out.
First, I won't be fired.
If I make such a joke around colleagues who know me, they'll probably take me apart and tell me they found it hurtful and I'll apologize and it'll end there.
If I do it around someone who feels more strongly about it, I'll have to have a serious talk with people I know and who know me in HR and in my hierarchy, who value my contributions, understand the larger context of the person that I am and my personal circumstances, yet recognize I did something inappropriate that needs to be addressed and corrected, and importantly with whom I have a contract enforced by the state.
That's a whole lot more nuance, maturity and sanity than getting a hundred thousand people calling for your job online because you made a joke.
Second, the way you behave at work and outside of work are not equivalent. If I'm just some lambda employee, no reasonable person should assume I speak for my company when I express myself on a non-professional public platform.
Third, nobody holds the ultimate truth about what is sexist, racist and to a larger extent right and wrong wrt current social and political issues. That's the nature of social and political issues, there are two sides, one is not good and the other evil. If your job depends on complying with online zealots representing a single extremist side of an issue, you are in essence forbidding some political opinions.
Sure, there's process at most jobs for disciplining employees - but there are generally still consequences for speech that is racist, sexist, and so on. If a company doesn't enforce those standards, they will probably find their legal bills becoming very expensive. Ergo, there are consequences for speech in the workplace.
If an employee takes part in a KKK rally, should their employer turn a blind eye towards it if they find out? If a person advocates for killing gay people online, should their employer ignore it? If the employer ignores it, then there is a good chance that black people or gay people won't work for them. Why? Because gay people won't feel safe working next to someone who advocates their death.
I'm saying mocking creationism is the same as mocking creationists, sure. I'm not defending them though. They can defend themselves if they want. They don't need my help.
Not OP and not agreeing with this, but I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct.
The (faulty) chain of logic goes:
1. You are challenging my belief.
2. This belief is about part of who I am.
3. Therefore you are challenging me and/or my existence.
> I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct. The (faulty) chain of logic goes:
In the case of mocking, I would say there's no difference between the two. Mocking either creationists or nonbinary people is mean-spirited and a wrong thing to do. In fact, I've always had quite a problem with Richard Dawkins for this very reason. But I'm not going to say that either one should be deplatformed or anything like that.
When it comes to laws then there is a big difference between the two. In the case of creationists, no one is creating laws restricting creationists from participating in public life. It's true that people have an issue with creationists teaching creationism as fact, but that's a different matter entirely. However, on the other side what we see are laws against certain people existing in public places.
That's what we mean by "challenging me and/or my existence." It's not, "You can't talk about creationism here". Instead it's, "You can't be here if you believe in creationism", which I don't think is a law anywhere. And yet in the past many people have passed such laws against minorities of all kinds restricting them using attributes they can't change about themselves. This is what you perceive as "granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct". While it's true that being a Christian and believing in creationism is in some sense an immutable property of one's self identity, at the same time no one is passing laws barring Christians from bathrooms because the Catholic Church has a problem with harboring pedophiles.
In particular, there is a very strong conservative movement in the US dedicated to the idea there are exactly two genders, and they are very intent on legislating as such, just as they legislated gay people from participating in public institutions such as marriage.
I see no examples in that article of laws restricting nonbinary people from participating in public life, and somewhat the opposite (recognition of nonbinary as a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws).
It's amazing to me that same-sex marriage was legalized just in 2015 by the slimmest of margins (a decision that wouldn't have been made by the current court, and is vowed to be legislated away by the GOP), we're on the cusp of a new moral panic regarding transgendered people, and you're still requesting to be spoon feed proof that this discrimination exists, even after I already spoon fed it to you. Here's another spoonful: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-leg...
You seem to be equating nonbinary and transgender. I’m quite aware of the state of play on transgender bathroom bills and sports inclusion, but I’m really genuinely unaware of any legislation that would prevent nonbinary people from participating in things like marriage (we’re taking about legislation aren’t we? Not discrimination in general?)
> You seem to be equating nonbinary and transgender.
First, many nonbinary people identify as transgender. Second, anti-trans laws don't have very clear delineations on who they target, first of all because the legislation is written by clueless people who hardly have an idea or even care to have an idea what it means to be trans versus nonbinary.
But moreover it should be obvious by now that the current crop of anti-trans laws are just a backlash to the Obergefell decision in 2015, and it's not even intended to target specifically trans people. They are vice signals intended to put LGBTQIA people in general on notice as to the ideological posture of the state. They are not going to be very discriminate about targeting you if you're trans but leaving you alone if you're nonbinary. It's a distinction without a difference to them.
Anti trans laws are an admission that the anti-LGBTQIA movement lost a battle but intends to continue the war by moving over to a new letter of the acronym. We know this to be true because they're recycling all the same anti-gay rhetoric and tactics they used to use in the 90s against gay rights, but this time subbing in "trans", who appear to be targeted next because of their visibility in the community. There are no principles behind these arguments, because if there were they'd still be making the same arguments about gay people. They aren't making those arguments anymore because they know they lost those arguments culturally. But they still believe those things and want to keep saying them but this time directing their hate toward trans people.
And it's true Obergefell gave us same sex marriage, but since 2015 they have been vowing to erase that decision, and they've worked tirelessly to make that a reality. The Supreme Court is now exactly where the GOP have wanted it for a generation, and they are using it as they promised; abortion rights will be done this summer, and next on the chopping block is gay marriage as promised. They said they are going to do it, and it looks like they will. Right now it doesn't seem like there's a lot to stop them.
> we’re taking about legislation aren’t we? Not discrimination in general?
One last thing I'd like to point out, is that when lawmakers stand in the way of anti-discrimination laws because they want the discrimination to continue, this is a form of legalized discrimination. You don't need to make harassment and discrimination legal by passing a law saying it's okay, instead you keep it legal by preventing the passage of laws saying it's forbidden.
Would you extend your analysis to mockery of creationism too? That’s part of people’s identity too, and creationists are undoubtedly offended at being mocked.
And if you mock them, creationists will also start a mob against you. And probably try to prevent you from ever being hired at places they work at.
Such behavior always existed.
It's just that if a sect cancels you it's less painful than if the majority of society cancels you. And lots of right wing people don't want to believe how left wing society as a whole has become, so they see canceling as a conspiracy by the left, when it's really just the majority of society boycotting you.
There are very few regions in the western world where progressives are not the majority.
In terms of the total population of countries, pretty much the enture west has a significant majority towards progressive policies.
The opposite is true though, conservatives — while, with some exceptions, being the minority — tend to feel like they deserve more publicity, and tend to believe in a silent majority (which isn't real, btw).
(Some of aforementioned exceptions are smaller communities — people tend to cluster spatially based on their beliefs).
Mocking individual creationists often is a cheap shot. Particularly a decade or two ago there was a slightly nasty side to the 'new atheism' that took delight in making fun of people who were either just morons or extremely uneducated.
> The belief in this case being that your opinion of their identity, based on the studies you have read, is more relevant to their truth (or anyone's) than their feelings about their identity. As far as some of us are concerned, it isn't.
Facts are more important than feelings.
> It just happens that there are enough people who feel that way that being ostracized by them stings. Your options are to not do it or accept that a large portion of society will think you're a dick.
In this case it’s 10 % of the population (progressives or woke whatever you want to call them) who make a lot of noise and have the power to push their ideas on the rest of society. You get banned on twitter for questioning or mocking current gender ideas. Media also don’t give airplay to people who disagree. There’s no debate possible. So we get a misrepresentation of what society really thinks.
And that’s why, if you believe him, Elon wants to buy twitter.
I've never really been persuaded by the 'facts are more important than feelings' statement. At best, it's an apples and oranges comparison in most cases. People don't typically claim they feel creationism is true, rather they take creationism as a fact. Similarly, the fact that I feel this way is nevertheless a fact, one which we take on good faith many times a day in person and online. If someone tells you they're angry, we're usually justified in believing that fact about their mental state. The degree to which we're skeptical of that claim is heavily influeneced in turn by epistemic trustworthiness and epistemic justice.
I think GP's point is that being or not being non-binary is unfalsifiable. I don't have a horse in that race, as I'm not sufficiently informed on the topic. However, it's important to note that (i) falsifiability is not the only reason to believe something and (ii) there is serious criticism of the idea that a statement must be falsifiable to be considered scientific.
I accept that someone is non-binary the same way that I accept that someone is a man or woman. I haven't had any issues with it so far, and it has the added bonus of making people feel validated, accepted, and comfortable around me, which is also a benefit to me in turn.
The meaning of "identity" has changed over the last 10 years in two distinct ways. First, the number of identities has increased (which is great), and second, my identity is a stick with which I can beat up others (which is not fine).
The most common and visible "stick" takes the form of creating a new pronoun to represent my identity and forcing others to use it, lest they be labelled a bigot. This strategy is coercive and antisocial. You change language and then use the threat of attack to enforce the change. (The argument that without the change, people are disrespected, or unable to express their identity, is simply false. This is why God created adjectives! Foot fetishists don't need a pronoun.) It is authoritarian in the sense that you brook no argument, and accept only submission. Anything else means (social) death. This is a leftist authoritarian power play, and I resist it totally.
There are secondary "sticks", like when liberals think it's okay to let trans women compete with bio women, especially in sports that are dangerous, like MMA. That's not okay, it will never be okay, and I would have though that was obvious, but a sentiment like that will get you labelled transphobic. There seems to be some sort of slippery slope effect at play, which makes every argument all or nothing - the possibility that you might respect and like transwomen (as I do) AND be against them participating in competitive sports (as I am) isn't a reasonable possibility in the current climate. Ironically, and sadly, this bad position weakens the path to trans acceptance.
All that said, none of this matters if we're all dead, so better to focus on fixing climate, nukes, and authoritarianism.
I don't really get the 'pronoun-as-stick' thing. I've never met somebody who has created a pronoun to express themselves. I've only really come across novel pronouns in 80's literature. I have met (and had friends) who were semi-regularly called the wrong pronoun, (as far as I could see) so people could make a point. That for me is the common case of 'pronoun-as-stick', not authoritarian foot-fetishists or whatever.
You poor oppressed baby. How mean those liberals/gays are to you that they ask you to call them by their preferred name and pronoun. You're so brave in resisting our hegemony!
I would resist any rule system enforced in this way, even if I agreed with it. Not that it matters, but I do agree with most of the rules, as I understand them.
Also, I'm a liberal as stated, and I prefer the company of gay people. I'm happy to do what I can to make those around me comfortable. I am not happy to do that, or anything else, on pain of cancellation.
Not going to dive further than this into this ridiculous can of worms, but this is not an issue of accepting someone's expression of identity, it is the use of that expression to change culture and reality through force of law, by deign of grievance.
You should absolutely be allowed to make terrible jokes about that, people are also allowed to tell you you're not funny.
> You should absolutely be allowed to make terrible jokes about that, people are also allowed to tell you you're not funny.
And you might face consequences for telling jokes that aren't funny and are offensive. Tell a racist joke at work, and there are decent odds you'll lose your job.
This is precisely why someone would call you a bigot; Oxford defines the term thusly:
> a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
The belief in this case being that your opinion of their identity, based on the studies you have read, is more relevant to their truth (or anyone's) than their feelings about their identity. As far as some of us are concerned, it isn't.
This isn't a left-vs-right matter, either. That framing establishes factional conflict where there could be simple misunderstanding, which isn't terribly productive.
Really, the issue at hand is that you feel like you should get to make jokes about people's identity, and others feel like joking about people based on their identity is rude so they call you out on it. It just happens that there are enough people who feel that way that being ostracized by them stings. Your options are to not do it or accept that a large portion of society will think you're a dick.