For popular or very good threads
For Debate:
1. Is there a scientific basis showing that someone can be non-binary or genderqueer?

2. If there is no scientific basis, then why should I accept it?

3. If I accept this without a solid scientific basis, then will this set a precedent for anyone or any group to come up with a classification(s), and then use that to acquire a special status in society?
1) No. A big role of the genders is to procreate. Trans men can not impregnate women neither can trans women get pregnant.

2) You should not have to. I can see law makers trying to eventually make it into a law. Our kids should also not have to be taught about gender outside of science education.

3) It will and that is the problem! I volunteered at a homeless shelter that has a section for men and a separate section for women and families. On one occasion two two males wanted to stay in the women's section. They self identified as female...no sex change. We turned them down and referred them to the health department. They would have to get a leather from the health department saying that they were female before we can let them stay with the women.
 
Last edited:
  • Insightful
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
1) No. A big role of the genders is to procreate. Trans men can not impregnate women neither can trans women get pregnant.

2) You should not have to. I can see law makers trying to eventually make it into a law. Our kids should also not have to be taught about gender outside of science education.

3) It will and that is the problem! I volunteered at a homeless shelter that has a section for men and a separate section for women and families. On one occasion two two males wanted to stay in the women's section. They self identified as female...no sex change. We turned them down and referred them to the health department. They would have to get a leather from the health department saying that they were female before we can let them stay with the women.
Hi Tracy. I can see what a difficult position that must have been at the homeless shelter. (I helped run one of those one winter as well.) It is obviously a practical problem but I don’t think it’s being inconvenient means other genders don’t exist or need never be accommodated. Your solution that night was to acknowledge you were not equipped to give them what they asked while insuring the safety of everyone else. Men with women is a little like foxes with chicken. I would have done the same.

I don’t really do debate but my take on the three points AB raised would be:


1. Certainly many of the intersex conditions are biologically demonstrable. So the short answer is yes, sometimes there is a scientific basis.

2. Science is not sufficient and only rarely adequate at all to assess the nature of our subjective being. So for literature, the arts and humanities scientific basis is irrelevant. We should accept the importance of Shakespeare irrespective of what science has to say about that.*

3. In general I would never decide such a question on the basis of the potential for setting a precedent for other cases. In law such considerations are necessary as well as in public policy. But I'm neither obliged not inclined to live my life like that. That a sound decision tree for all possible cases inolving non standard gender is even possible is suspect. In general I don't think we should ever let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

*I recently came across this article again and I think it applies here. It's point, I think, is that an over reliance on science, especially by applying it where it doesn't fit, should be rejected.

"Wittgenstein’s thought has made very little impression on the intellectual life of this century. As he himself realised, his style of thinking is at odds with the style that dominates our present era. His work is opposed, as he once put it, to “the spirit which informs the vast stream of European and American civilisation in which all of us stand.” Nearly 50 years after his death, we can see, more clearly than ever, that the feeling that he was swimming against the tide was justified. If we wanted a label to describe this tide, we might call it “scientism,” the view that every intelligible question has either a scientific solution or no solution at all. It is against this view that Wittgenstein set his face.


Scientism takes many forms. In the humanities, it takes the form of pretending that philosophy, literature, history, music and art can be studied as if they were sciences, with “researchers” compelled to spell out their “methodologies”—a pretence which has led to huge quantities of bad academic writing, characterised by bogus theorising, spurious specialisation and the development of pseudo-technical vocabularies. Wittgenstein would have looked upon these developments and wept."

 
Last edited:
1) No. A big role of the genders is to procreate. Trans men can not impregnate women neither can trans women get pregnant.

2) You should not have to. I can see law makers trying to eventually make it into a law. Our kids should also not have to be taught about gender outside of science education.

3) It will and that is the problem! I volunteered at a homeless shelter that has a section for men and a separate section for women and families. On one occasion two two males wanted to stay in the women's section. They self identified as female...no sex change. We turned them down and referred them to the health department. They would have to get a leather from the health department saying that they were female before we can let them stay with the women.
Hey there Tracy... I started a topic that would go with your 2nd point regarding education...

Should parents be in charge of their kids education?

 
Hi Tracy.
Hi and welcome back! :)

I don’t really do debate but my take on the three points AB raised would be:
Same here. I used to discuss theological topics but ever since Covid-19 hit, my life has been mostly work.

1. Certainly many of the intersex conditions are biologically demonstrable. So the short answer is yes, sometimes there is a scientific basis.
I admit I misunderstood the topic. I thought it was about transgender.

I'm a Christian and I can say that the Church acknowledges that someone can be born as a "intersex". Where Christians differ is on how we treat this situation. We don't embrace or accept them as intersex unlike you, AB, and many others. Here is one Catholic's perspective..

Making Sense of Bioethics: Column 132: Seeing through the Intersex Confusion by Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, PhD

Sometimes the suggestion is made that intersex individuals are, in fact, neither male nor female, but fluid, malleable or “bisexual,” with sexual identity residing somewhere between male and female. This kind of explanation is untenable.

Human beings, along with most other members of the animal kingdom, are marked by an ineradicable sexual “dimorphism,” or “two-forms,” namely, male and female. When problems arise in the development of one of these forms, this does not make for a new “third form,” or worse, for an infinite spectrum of different sexual forms.

Instead, intersex situations represent cases in which a person is either male or female, but has confounding physiological factors that make them appear or feel as if they were of the opposite sex, or maybe even both sexes. In other words, the underlying sex remains, even though the psychology or gender they experience may be discordant. Put another way, intersex individuals may be "drawn away" from their intrinsic male or female sexual constitution by various anatomical differences in their bodies, and by opposing interior physiological drives and forces.

This can be further complicated because of strong cultural forces that contribute to the confusion by sanctioning a paradigm of complete malleability in human sexual behaviors that militates against an understanding of sex-based "hard-wiring."

Even though it may not be popular to affirm the fact, people suffer from sexual development disorders in much the same way that they suffer from other kinds of developmental disorders, whether of the cardiac/circulatory system, of the nervous/intellectual system or others. No one, of course, should be subjected to bias or mistreatment due to a bodily disorder they may have been born with, but in treating such persons, we always strive to return their cardiac or intellectual functions to their proper baseline, rather than inventing a new abnormal as the norm and defining that as a “treatment,” as some are tempted to do with sexual development disorders.

While a newborn’s "intrinsic maleness" or “intrinsic femaleness” may be difficult to assess in certain more complicated intersex cases, the point remains that there is an "intrinsic" or "underlying" sexual constitution that we must do our best to recognize, respect, and act in accord with. We must carefully acknowledge, nurture and accept our given embodied sexual nature as male or female. Willfully denying or acting against that given nature will constitute little more than a prescription for disillusionment and dishonesty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkD
I admit I misunderstood the topic. I thought it was about transgender.
Just to recap, the thread topic is about the gender identity terms that are referred to as genderqueer or non-binary. MarkD brought up 'intersex' to serve as an example of genderqueer. So far, all of the members that have weighed in have agreed that people can be intersex.

I'm a Christian and I can say that the Church acknowledges that someone can be born as a "intersex". Where Christians differ is on how we treat this situation. We don't embrace or accept them as intersex unlike you, AB, and many others.
You bring up an important aspect of this entire issue. We can have all of the facts, but how should we act on it? This is where I tend to see a breakdown of science when it comes to clinical practice and public policy. Ideally, I'd want only science informing clinical practice and public policy but instead, I can see other factors entering the picture. For instance, we can see this clearly when it comes to the issue of if people are born gay. The secular side tends to say people are born gay as part of a genetic determinism argument to show that it's not a choice. Meanwhile, the religious want to deny that claim so that they can say it is a choice, and then they can bring in the moral aspect. The experts tend to side with the secular side so a lot of them argue against or flat out ban conversion therapy.

But speaking from a strict scientific standpoint, we know that even biology is not fixed. Genetic expression can change (epigenetics) and even brain function and structure (neuroplasticity) can change all based on experience. On the religious side, we know that neither God nor the Christian morals are proven to be objective or valid. Yet public policy and clinical practice still follows the secular camp despite their deviation from science. No side is willing to explore if there are healthy ways (non-religious ways) to change sexual orientation.

TracyRN quoting an article...
While a newborn’s "intrinsic maleness" or “intrinsic femaleness” may be difficult to assess in certain more complicated intersex cases, the point remains that there is an "intrinsic" or "underlying" sexual constitution that we must do our best to recognize, respect, and act in accord with. We must carefully acknowledge, nurture and accept our given embodied sexual nature as male or female. Willfully denying or acting against that given nature will constitute little more than a prescription for disillusionment and dishonesty.
The explanation here basically leaves it up to the person to "recognize, respect, and act in accord with" with what they see as being "intrinsic". This is problematic not only because it is subjective, but also, doesn't the Church advise against this when it comes to transgender people? Transgendered people also decide that they are intrinsically male or female.
 
Even though it may not be popular to affirm the fact, people suffer from sexual development disorders in much the same way that they suffer from other kinds of developmental disorders, whether of the cardiac/circulatory system, of the nervous/intellectual system or others. No one, of course, should be subjected to bias or mistreatment due to a bodily disorder they may have been born with, but in treating such persons, we always strive to return their cardiac or intellectual functions to their proper baseline, rather than inventing a new abnormal as the norm and defining that as a “treatment,” as some are tempted to do with sexual development disorders.

From the article:

“While a newborn’s "intrinsic maleness" or “intrinsic femaleness” may be difficult to assess in certain more complicated intersex cases, the point remains that there is an "intrinsic" or "underlying" sexual constitution that we must do our best to recognize, respect, and act in accord with. We must carefully acknowledge, nurture and accept our given embodied sexual nature as male or female. Willfully denying or acting against that given nature will constitute little more than a prescription for disillusionment and dishonesty.”

Though some intersex seem to embrace being ‘other’ than male/female I’m inclined to agree with you and the author that most often there is probably an intrinsic maleness or femaleness in every newborn, in some cases it is not a straightforward matter to determine which it is. In these cases, if you guess wrong in your sex assignment surgery you risk choosing badly. If indeed it is intrinsic then even very good plastic surgery risks compounding the difficulties for the child. If surgery is delayed to give the child’s verbal development an opportunity to guide the choice it could help alleviate that risk. I’m not suggesting the choice be made the child’s alone but surely the opportunity to hear from the child could help. Tricky regardless since young children can be pretty undifferentiated until puberty. But there are many cases where the assignment choice was made badly and the feeling of entering puberty with the wrong body may be even worse than one that is just incompletely developed. Cases like that make me leery of taking an authoritarian approach to sex assignment for intersex babies.
 
The explanation here basically leaves it up to the person to "recognize, respect, and act in accord with" with what they see as being "intrinsic". This is problematic not only because it is subjective, but also, doesn't the Church advise against this when it comes to transgender people?
The Church treats the transgender crowd differently when they are not hermaphrodites. If it is clear that you are a biological male or female from birth then that it what the person should stick with.
 
Cases like that make me leery of taking an authoritarian approach to sex assignment for intersex babies.
I completely agree Mark. Some Christians may be quick to judge but there are no easy answers here. This matter requires a lot of support and compassion. I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is on a child to have to go through a journey to figure out their gender. The pressure from society to fit in a gender category makes it worse. This is probably weighing on the mind of parent's when they have to decide the gender of their newborn.
 
Here's one good source that clarifies some terms:

Transgender
Transgender, or trans, is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them at birth.
Source: https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq

Non-binary
Non-binary is an identity embraced by some people who do not identify exclusively as a man or a woman. Non-binary people may identify as being both a man and a woman, somewhere in between or as falling completely outside of these categories. While many also identify as transgender, not all non-binary people do. Non-binary can also be used as an umbrella term encompassing identities such as agender, bigender, genderqueer or gender fluid.
Source: same as above
 
Summing up my position here based on the discussions above:
1. Gender is a complex relationship between body (anatomy and physiology), Identity (what we identify as), and Expression (our behavior in society, gender roles, etc).

2. Everyone falls within the gender spectrum with exclusive male and exclusive female as endpoints. Refer to post #9 for further explanation.

3. I don't see any validity for gender outside of the spectrum above, because science has not established alternative genders that has all 3 dimensions mentioned in #1 for this post. Sure, someone can define a third gender into existence and say they identify with that, but how is that any different than someone coming up with some alien race, and then claiming that they identify as that? This reminds me of how agnostics look for a middle ground when atheism is also defined as lack of belief (as opposed to being a belief against God).