Is the “progressive” non-binary trend covertly regressive?
Instead of dismantling the gender binary, many advocates for they/them pronouns are potentially reinforcing gender stereotypes.
Gender activists claim that gender is fluid, yet the term ‘non-binary’ bolsters the notion that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ connote attributes beyond one’s physical sex. Besides the somewhat irksome contradiction, the non-binary trend is potentially harmful for anyone whose gender expression falls outside gender stereotypes – which, pretty much accounts for all tomboys.
As a woman whose heels naturally pivot toward the menswear section, I’m probed more than most as to how I identify myself. When asked what my pronouns are, it’s become a routine response to enquire (with docile and curiosity-filled eyes) what exactly ‘non-binary’ means to that person. The curiosity isn’t an act – it is a fascinating reveal that most people in question don’t really have a firm grasp on what non-binary means.
Stonewall (an LGBT charity in the U.K.) made an attempt:
‘Non-binary is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortable with ‘man’ or ‘woman’. Non-binary identities are varied and can include people who identify with some aspects of binary identities, while others reject them entirely. Non-binary people can feel that their gender identity and gender experience involves being both a man and a woman, or that it is fluid, in between, or completely outside of that binary.’
Perhaps marquee term is more appropriate.
Advocates for ‘they/them’ (non-binary pronouns) could argue that the vagueness of the term ‘non-binary’ merely reflects its denotation of borderline, middle-ground and outlier cases – and accordingly, the term is intuitively vague. But the conception that non-binary is some kind of outcast, middle-ground identity, implies that it is a comparative term – so there has to be a binary reference point in order to define it.
Amidst the vague definitions, there was at least one commonality: non-binary is considered fundamentally different in kind, to ‘woman’ or ‘man’. Whether it’s, “I don’t feel like my identity fits the gender binary”, or “I feel like a woman and a man”, non-binary offers people an opt-out option, in some way or another, that appeases their discontent.
The question is, why do people need an opt-out option at all? In order for a non-binary person to feel as though they don’t meet the woman/man criterium, they must have some discernible concept of the qualities these terms connote; ideas which surpass the rudimentary idea that woman/man merely denote assigned sex at birth, or the sex that someone has transitioned into. However, by rejecting the woman/man criterium, or claiming to be part-woman/part-man, non-binary identifiers reinforce the idea that these terms connote attributes other than what’s beneath our waistbands. Ironically, by stepping out of the binary, gender ideologues first have to draw a square box around ‘woman’ and ‘man’.
What does it mean to ‘be a woman’?
Femininity deserves celebration just as much as masculinity does. But is femininity the crux of what it means to be a woman?
Certainly, I don’t think it should be taboo to recognise that women are generally more feminine than men. Indeed, it’s a rather blatant observation. Many women enjoy wearing their hear long, wearing dresses and pretty lingerie – but it’s not how all women enjoy dressing. And likewise, whilst studies show that women dominate traditionally feminine career roles – such as nursing and teaching – there are women who excel in stereotypically masculine roles, and exhibit masculine traits. But surely being a more masculine woman, doesn’t make you any less of a woman?
The problem is, when gender ideologues probe us as to whether we feel more like a man or a woman – what they’re really asking is whether we feel more masculine, or more feminine. Consequently, any woman who looks at herself in the mirror and doesn’t see an overtly feminine portrait staring back, may begin to query whether she should be referring to herself as a woman at all.
More women, than men, identify as non-binary
A study revealed that 20% more women are using non-binary labels, compared to men. So why are women being disproportionately taken-in by this trend?
Throughout history, women have been perceived as biologically inferior to men; and have been deprived of basic rights and education, enslaved, and restricted to domestic responsibilities. Even today, in the “civilised” West, women experience sexual harassment, sex-based violence, workplace discrimination and wage inequality. In conjunction with liberal feminism, which implies that in order to thrive in society, women need to converge more with masculine stereotypes – it is perhaps unsurprising that many women are inclined to drop the woman label, and gravitate more towards a sex-neutral identity.
The optimist in me doesn’t like to think that the intent behind the non-binary trend is necessarily a bad one – I just don’t think it’s been properly thought-out. Surely it would be far more revolutionary for a woman who wants to dismantle the gender binary to stand by her female pronouns, whilst stretching the idea of what it means to be a woman? The Iranian fundamentalist regime is literally paying for gender reassignment surgeries because it sees the existence of lesbians and masculine-appearing women as a threat. Instead of challenging the gender binary, women are reinforcing it in believing they must be part-man, or something else entirely, if they exhibit masculine traits (which, I’m sorry, we all do to varying extents). Cowering away from sex-based labels merely fortifies restrictive notions as to what it means to be a woman or a man.
Female-to-male gender reassignment surgery (GRS) is on the rise
‘Transgender’ describes someone who experiences severe dysphoria with respect to their biological sex, and will often require medical assistance in order to transition into the desired sex. According to a study, 42% of non-binary people also identify as transgender – even though Stonewall defines the terms as mutually exclusive.
Referrals to the Tavistock and Portman Foundation Trust’s gender identity development service (GIDS) – the main treatment clinic for gender dysphoria in the U.K. – have soared, from 77 referrals in 2009, to 2,590 in 2019. It was later revealed that over 70% of these referrals were female. This trend is reflected in the U.S., and across Europe. In Finland it was reported that a staggering 87% of referrals were female. Dare I ask – why are so many women suddenly experiencing severe gender dysphoria, compared to men?
The affirmation bias
According to an NCBI report, 13.1% of people who underwent GRS, detransitioned. The main reason for detransitions was reported as external factors, such as ‘societal pressure’ and ‘financial restrictions’; but ‘fluctuations in identity’ and ‘psychological reasons’ were among reasons.
Whilst it’s difficult to gain an accurate insight as to why detransition rates are increasing, what we do know is that until recently, anyone seeking GRS was subject to an extensive assessment by mental health practitioners. In 2019, it was reported that 35 psychologists had resigned from the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s GIDS (U.K. Transgender clinic), as whistleblowers warn of “overdiagnoses” of gender dysphoria among children.
One psychologist said,
“The alarm started ringing for me… I didn’t feel able to voice my concerns, or when I did I was often shut down by other affirmative clinicians. Looking back there are young people who I now wouldn’t necessarily put on medication.”
Another former staff said that they were unable to properly assess patients over fears they will be branded “transphobic”.
This new “affirmation” trend, where anyone’s proclaimed transgenderism is taken at face-value, has metastasized from “trans activism” into medical institutions, without any regard for the placement of stringent assessment procedures in the first place.
But a laissez-faire approach to transgender diagnosis only offers part of the puzzle as to why detransition ranks are on the rise.
The detransition tales
Genuine transgender individuals often experience drastic improvements to their well-being following GRS, yet those who transition for the wrong reasons are not only left with the same internal discontent, but with irreversible changes to their bodies.
Over the past 10 years, detransition tales have been accumulating online. It’s telling that many of these stories are told by women, many of whom are lesbian, struggling with an underlying eating disorder or generalised body dysmorphia, and/or crippled by the over-sexualisation of their bodies, past traumatic experiences, and/or the sense that they don’t meet society’s ascribed notions of what it means to be a woman or a sense that being a woman is “limiting somehow”.
The point is, there’s a myriad of explanations (besides being transgender) that could account for someone’s gender dysphoria; and that’s why it’s essential that transgender clinics have an extensive assessment procedure in place. Otherwise, transitioning merely acts as a bandaid over an infected wound.
Another common theme among detransitioners was the significant amount of time spent in the digital sphere – immersing in online communities and reading into gender ideology. They describe how they were “drip-fed”, “caught in a toxic positive-feedback loop”, and “indoctrinated” into believing that the only solution to their internal struggle, was identifying as a man.
Identity-fixation only serves to bind, not liberate
We live in a digital era, where everyone wants to be different, whilst simultaneously accepted and endorsed by the masses. It’s the reason why the iconic rainbow LGBT flag is (quite literally) being covered-over by other sociopolitical identities, or why ‘The majority of the increase in LGBT identity can be traced to how those who only engage in heterosexual behaviour describe themselves’ – because everyone wants to be “queer”, everyone wants a slice of the oppression pie.
We are also, more than ever, self-obsessed – and we can blame social media for that. Users plug themselves into digital avatars, and create content with the intent to reel in the highest level of engagement. Striking content, with a moral backstory, is highly popular online. Our personal bios necessitate describing ourselves in as few words as possible. Essentially, we are marketing ourselves to the world in a sphere where boundaries are skewed and stretched. We become caricatures of our real selves. I wonder, perhaps identity labels are just the product tags we attach to ourselves for ease of purchase online – the currency being a ‘follow’ or a ‘like’.
The thing is, if you fixate on anything, you will eventually distort your perception of it; its reality within your world becomes something else entirely. One woman who detransitioned, explained how she didn’t even experience gender dysphoria prior to discovering the term ‘non-binary’ online. We merely have to pick up a school history book to demonstrate why we should never underestimate the power of a smoke and mirror narrative. The problem is, much of what we see online is a hoax – pull at a thread and it will fall apart.
Closing thoughts
In a fast-paced digital era, where appearance holds greater currency than truth, the most pertinent question we can ask ourselves is: Do I want this for me?
It is far too easy to become entangled in a morally-charged ideology, like the non-binary trend. But the best way to safeguard ourselves and ensure that the steps that we’re taking are our own, is to not stumble blindly into something, or follow suit just because everyone else is doing it.