Hi Clare. I enjoyed reading this. I am the author of a forthcoming book on nonbinary identity (The Third Person, 2027) that deals with some of these ideas as well. I would be interested to read more of your thoughts on the identity’s political valences. If I’m reading correctly, you seem to regard it as something mostly belonging to the “illiberal ‘woke’” left but simultaneously point out that it seeks validation via liberal regimes of recognition (for instance, Butler changing their sex marker). I am curious where you fall politically and if you have any thoughts on this tension.
Hi Jamie! Yes, there definitely is a tension there. I consider myself fairly centrist or classically liberal. A liberal version of nonbinary politics would be to allow people to identify however they like and respect that idenfication, but some activists want to impose illberal measures like speech codes. I very much value free speech and tolerance, and want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to maintain their own beliefs and not have a certain view of gender imposed on them.
The complication is how we can balance allowing diverse views and still make choices in society like whether we should allow self ID, what to do with single gender spaces, etc. These aren't easy questions and people have different ideas of what's fair, safe, and free, even within the trans and nonbinary community. I know a few conservative trans people and want to be careful not to conflate "nonbinary" with "social justice activist," "leftist," or "liberal." Some people don't want any validation from liberal systems, others want it but won't enforce it, others want validation enforced. All you can really do is ask questions of the person you're talking to since there's a broad array of perspectives within any group identity, but I would say there's definitely a cultural association between contemporary trans activism and illiberal leftism or "wokeness," at least if you ask people on the center-right.
Your book sounds really fascinating. Looking forward to reading it when it comes out. You're more than welcome to write a response to Clare's piece, or related to your book. Or, when your book comes out, etc. Feel free to follow up sometime if interested.
I love the openness and questioning in this piece. We need more room for that in online spaces. I distinctly remember being a teenager in the 80's cringing whenever an adult said I was going to grow up to be a woman. I said "I want to be a person" I am bi/pan and monogamously married to a cishetero male who was raised by his mother and has a lot of healthy gender balance. I flirt with the concept of nonbinary although there is a part of me that identified strongly with second-wave feminism with gender as a social construct and roles being restrictive and a science fiction fan waiting for androgynous jumpers for everyone😎. I have been attracted to a person because of their energy and intelligence , not necessarily their gender. I have never felt a biological urge to nurture children. I am also into Goddess and Earth based spirituality. Nature has many expressions beyond our human binary. Yet I have never felt an urge to change my pronoun (unless I could use Marge Piercy's pronoun "per" for "person" from her book "Woman on the Edge of Time") but I've heard the term "Gender Expansive" and it resonates more than "nonbinary". What interest me more is creating a world that prioritizes nurturing the next generation as a human project not just one gender. And allowing that generation to unfold and grow without being forced into a chosen or societal role.
Agree that the “gendered soul” thing contradicts Butler, but…
(a) I don’t think that emerges from leftist ideology — rather, activists promote the concept because it unlocks a powerful civil rights strategy: “it’s not fair to punish someone for being born a certain way.” It worked tremendously for gay rights, and it was part of the case for Black civil rights. (Some people do seem to have a neurological condition that makes them fit the “gendered soul” paradigm, and they were the original subjects of trans activism; but now we clearly have a lot of adolescents doing it out of mimetic desire. At this point the true opposite-gender souls are probably a small minority of the trans population, if I had to guess.)
(b) Butler is (on this point at least) correct. Biological sex influences one’s expression of their personality through hormones, but there are certainly gendered phenomena that arise not from biology, but things like social norms and mimetic desire. Do women wear skirts because of how their bodies are shaped? Then why do men in other places wear kilts? So this category exists and some people want to call that category “gender”. At birth, you have a sex but not a gender because you have no sense of the culture around you yet. You will probably turn out to be the gender that corresponds to your sex, but if you’re particularly rebellious you may choose a different option. Pretty straightforward to me!
Trans people are those who express themselves with the symbols of the gender that corresponds with the opposite sex. And nonbinary people are those who express themselves as a counterpoint to both genders. I do think it makes sense to say there are two genders, but it doesn’t follow that everyone has to be one of them.
I could go on for tens of thousands of words, but essentially: There are a lot of little confusions and contradictions introduced by the various participants in the conversation about gender binary. But it’s not actually that hard to form a coherent view that affirms the core tenets of Butler-based progressive gender ideology — you just have to reject some things that progressives tend to tack on, including Butler. And that takes some balls.
OTOH it takes zero balls to throw up your hands and say the whole project is cockamamie.
I definitely agree on the first point, although personally I think the "born this way" argument is weak, since what's natural isn't always necessarily good, but it was a successful argument nonetheless.
On the second point, I think I mostly agree with you but there is still the complication that even if you think a Butler-based progressive gender ideology makes sense, but you then ask other people to refer to you differently because of that on a societal level (not just interpersonally) we run into issues with liberalism. So it kind of wreaks havoc on society if you say, "I'm going to take this third position, because I'm rebellious," and then you actually demand the accommodations that go with that, such as a different sports category, different bathrooms, different prisons, etc. Of course, not everyone is asking for this, but it's something that has to be considered once you open that door.
No doubt. IMO sports segregation should usually be done by sex, not gender; nobody has a right to use a bathroom corresponding to their sex nor gender, that should be up to private entities; prisons should be segregated by sex, but also further segregated to prevent harm to trans women — they’re already segregated in many other ways to avoid violence.
Arguing that gender identity is linked to or rooted in biology is not a weak argument. It's not a value judgment; it's not stating that something being natural is inherently good or bad. It's simply explaining—or at least attempting to explain—how it develops.
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this, Clare, and I tend to agree with what you’ve said. Personally I feel my struggle with the concept of nonbinary is not whether it can be a meaningful way of understanding oneself (like you, I have people in my life who this is clearly true for and whose perspectives I value) but how it is imposed. Because I do feel like, at least within trans orthodoxy, acceptance of NB identities as ‘legitimate’ does also force me into a way of understanding myself which I don’t vibe with.
I’m not sure I can articulate this right, but I think your article brought something up for me about the difference between belief and respect, and questions of whether it is possible to fully respect someone’s identity without having true belief in it that mirrors their own understanding. Interesting to think about.
Clare, your notes have a great deal of authenticity. Although it is practically inevitable that other people’s ideas seep into our own, I sense that in your case you make a genuine effort to critically examine what you read and try to keep only what might truly have value.
I’m going to be very frank from the beginning: I oppose “gender ideology,” but at the same time I am very respectful toward people who honestly believe in those ideas, and I feel a great deal of empathy for those who do not fit the roles they are generally expected to fulfill based on their sex.
You make an effort to understand who you are—you read, you ask, you write—and at the end of the day you still haven’t fully resolved it, even though all the ideas are already there; what remains is simply to finish putting them in order.
I believe all your ideas would become much clearer if you could introduce one essential distinction: sex and gender are two different things.
Once you understand the difference between those two concepts, many things become clearer.
We all have a sex, one or the other, without exception, because that is simply how nature works. There is no third sex, nor an intermediate sex, nor something half and half.
As for gender, what we are talking about here is everything related to your own exploration: are you feminine? Yes, no, a little, somewhat, not at all, more or less? Do you feel that other women behave differently, as if they “knew” something that escapes you, or as if they moved through the world in ways that feel foreign to you? That is gender. It is about how we are and how we feel in relation to behavior and emotion. There are not only two options there—as there are with sex—we are all more or less masculine or feminine. And what does it mean to be masculine or feminine? In a certain sense, masculinity and femininity are indeed connected to sex, because there are undeniable correspondences between our bodies and our brains; but that correspondence is limited by many different factors.
I assume you are familiar with the theory that explains homosexuality through hormonal factors acting during gestation. It is the best explanation we currently have for understanding how a cross-sex sexual orientation is possible.
We can borrow that explanation and see how it fits with gender identity. This would allow us to understand its biological component. Yes, it is very possible that just as sexual orientation depends to a large extent on biological factors, identity does as well.
That said, it is likely that in identity—and very probably in orientation too—environmental, cultural, and psychological factors are also present.
So what is non-binary identity, the one you identify with? It is a way of feeling that does not fit the majority pattern, which, despite its variations, can still be called more typical. In most people, we could say that their identity and their sexual orientation are fairly “aligned” with their sex.
It is also important to point out something notable: it is very common for people with an atypical identity to also have an atypical sexual orientation. While this is not true in every case, I think it helps us understand these questions.
As for whether gender identity is some kind of “soul” we are born with, or whether it is something more fluid, my understanding so far is that for some people it is more intrinsic than for others. Perhaps, in cases where it seems more fluid, it would be more accurate to say that it simply took longer to become defined, probably because of external influences that prevented that person from showing themselves and accepting themselves as they truly are.
I especially enjoyed the part of your notes where you show how you feel, who you are, and how you explore both your own feelings and those of others, as well as how others see you. I see great curiosity and honesty in your search. You may not agree with everything, but I think that distinction helps clarify the issue considerably. In any case, I found it valuable to read you and to think through these questions through your notes.
The terfs have it right when they say that a Woman is just an adult human female. There's no such thing as woman as a gender, it's entirely imagined. And whilst you can then play around with the "idea" of being a woman, the fact is that even engaging with this imaginary concept requires you to reinforce harmful stereotypes.
So much of what you describe is the experience of being human, of having one's own brain and body and not having access to the inner thoughts or feeling of anyone else but oneself. That, compounded by dose of projection and mind reading. Someone looking at me might think I am girly, and definitely I appear girly, but my personality is much more typically masculine than my gender non conforming mother (never wears anything feminine, no makeup, couldn't operate a blow dryer if her life depended on it, but who was a home maker and relied on my dad for most things). I am not a mother, never had a biological clock moment in my life. I am married to a guy who works in construction but I am the breadwinner and run the house, take care of all the complicated financial stuff. If one person is nonbinary than we are all nonbinary.
First we are human. We have human experiences. Our bodies and their stock equipment cause particular experiences to happen (in my case endometriosis). But all the internal and external judgment is social.
You judge your roommate for acting a certain way with her friends and decide that could not be you. But you also enjoy spending time with friends sharing activities you enjoy. Liking stuff isnt gendered! To laugh and have fun is a universal experience, even when the input causing the laughter is different.
Focus more on commonalities and you will find yourself connected, rather than disconnected. Both to yourself, and to the reality of others' experiences that exist outside of external assumptions.
Be assertive. Be literary. Be technical. Be artistic. None of these things is gendered - unless you want to tell a small child you love who runs fast and tells fart jokes and plays princess dress up and is really into racing bikes that they have to pick a personality from a fixed menu with no substitutions.
Hi Clare. I enjoyed reading this. I am the author of a forthcoming book on nonbinary identity (The Third Person, 2027) that deals with some of these ideas as well. I would be interested to read more of your thoughts on the identity’s political valences. If I’m reading correctly, you seem to regard it as something mostly belonging to the “illiberal ‘woke’” left but simultaneously point out that it seeks validation via liberal regimes of recognition (for instance, Butler changing their sex marker). I am curious where you fall politically and if you have any thoughts on this tension.
Hi Jamie! Yes, there definitely is a tension there. I consider myself fairly centrist or classically liberal. A liberal version of nonbinary politics would be to allow people to identify however they like and respect that idenfication, but some activists want to impose illberal measures like speech codes. I very much value free speech and tolerance, and want to live in a society where everyone is allowed to maintain their own beliefs and not have a certain view of gender imposed on them.
The complication is how we can balance allowing diverse views and still make choices in society like whether we should allow self ID, what to do with single gender spaces, etc. These aren't easy questions and people have different ideas of what's fair, safe, and free, even within the trans and nonbinary community. I know a few conservative trans people and want to be careful not to conflate "nonbinary" with "social justice activist," "leftist," or "liberal." Some people don't want any validation from liberal systems, others want it but won't enforce it, others want validation enforced. All you can really do is ask questions of the person you're talking to since there's a broad array of perspectives within any group identity, but I would say there's definitely a cultural association between contemporary trans activism and illiberal leftism or "wokeness," at least if you ask people on the center-right.
Hi JLK,
Your book sounds really fascinating. Looking forward to reading it when it comes out. You're more than welcome to write a response to Clare's piece, or related to your book. Or, when your book comes out, etc. Feel free to follow up sometime if interested.
I love the openness and questioning in this piece. We need more room for that in online spaces. I distinctly remember being a teenager in the 80's cringing whenever an adult said I was going to grow up to be a woman. I said "I want to be a person" I am bi/pan and monogamously married to a cishetero male who was raised by his mother and has a lot of healthy gender balance. I flirt with the concept of nonbinary although there is a part of me that identified strongly with second-wave feminism with gender as a social construct and roles being restrictive and a science fiction fan waiting for androgynous jumpers for everyone😎. I have been attracted to a person because of their energy and intelligence , not necessarily their gender. I have never felt a biological urge to nurture children. I am also into Goddess and Earth based spirituality. Nature has many expressions beyond our human binary. Yet I have never felt an urge to change my pronoun (unless I could use Marge Piercy's pronoun "per" for "person" from her book "Woman on the Edge of Time") but I've heard the term "Gender Expansive" and it resonates more than "nonbinary". What interest me more is creating a world that prioritizes nurturing the next generation as a human project not just one gender. And allowing that generation to unfold and grow without being forced into a chosen or societal role.
Agree that the “gendered soul” thing contradicts Butler, but…
(a) I don’t think that emerges from leftist ideology — rather, activists promote the concept because it unlocks a powerful civil rights strategy: “it’s not fair to punish someone for being born a certain way.” It worked tremendously for gay rights, and it was part of the case for Black civil rights. (Some people do seem to have a neurological condition that makes them fit the “gendered soul” paradigm, and they were the original subjects of trans activism; but now we clearly have a lot of adolescents doing it out of mimetic desire. At this point the true opposite-gender souls are probably a small minority of the trans population, if I had to guess.)
(b) Butler is (on this point at least) correct. Biological sex influences one’s expression of their personality through hormones, but there are certainly gendered phenomena that arise not from biology, but things like social norms and mimetic desire. Do women wear skirts because of how their bodies are shaped? Then why do men in other places wear kilts? So this category exists and some people want to call that category “gender”. At birth, you have a sex but not a gender because you have no sense of the culture around you yet. You will probably turn out to be the gender that corresponds to your sex, but if you’re particularly rebellious you may choose a different option. Pretty straightforward to me!
Trans people are those who express themselves with the symbols of the gender that corresponds with the opposite sex. And nonbinary people are those who express themselves as a counterpoint to both genders. I do think it makes sense to say there are two genders, but it doesn’t follow that everyone has to be one of them.
I could go on for tens of thousands of words, but essentially: There are a lot of little confusions and contradictions introduced by the various participants in the conversation about gender binary. But it’s not actually that hard to form a coherent view that affirms the core tenets of Butler-based progressive gender ideology — you just have to reject some things that progressives tend to tack on, including Butler. And that takes some balls.
OTOH it takes zero balls to throw up your hands and say the whole project is cockamamie.
I definitely agree on the first point, although personally I think the "born this way" argument is weak, since what's natural isn't always necessarily good, but it was a successful argument nonetheless.
On the second point, I think I mostly agree with you but there is still the complication that even if you think a Butler-based progressive gender ideology makes sense, but you then ask other people to refer to you differently because of that on a societal level (not just interpersonally) we run into issues with liberalism. So it kind of wreaks havoc on society if you say, "I'm going to take this third position, because I'm rebellious," and then you actually demand the accommodations that go with that, such as a different sports category, different bathrooms, different prisons, etc. Of course, not everyone is asking for this, but it's something that has to be considered once you open that door.
No doubt. IMO sports segregation should usually be done by sex, not gender; nobody has a right to use a bathroom corresponding to their sex nor gender, that should be up to private entities; prisons should be segregated by sex, but also further segregated to prevent harm to trans women — they’re already segregated in many other ways to avoid violence.
Arguing that gender identity is linked to or rooted in biology is not a weak argument. It's not a value judgment; it's not stating that something being natural is inherently good or bad. It's simply explaining—or at least attempting to explain—how it develops.
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this, Clare, and I tend to agree with what you’ve said. Personally I feel my struggle with the concept of nonbinary is not whether it can be a meaningful way of understanding oneself (like you, I have people in my life who this is clearly true for and whose perspectives I value) but how it is imposed. Because I do feel like, at least within trans orthodoxy, acceptance of NB identities as ‘legitimate’ does also force me into a way of understanding myself which I don’t vibe with.
I’m not sure I can articulate this right, but I think your article brought something up for me about the difference between belief and respect, and questions of whether it is possible to fully respect someone’s identity without having true belief in it that mirrors their own understanding. Interesting to think about.
Clare, your notes have a great deal of authenticity. Although it is practically inevitable that other people’s ideas seep into our own, I sense that in your case you make a genuine effort to critically examine what you read and try to keep only what might truly have value.
I’m going to be very frank from the beginning: I oppose “gender ideology,” but at the same time I am very respectful toward people who honestly believe in those ideas, and I feel a great deal of empathy for those who do not fit the roles they are generally expected to fulfill based on their sex.
You make an effort to understand who you are—you read, you ask, you write—and at the end of the day you still haven’t fully resolved it, even though all the ideas are already there; what remains is simply to finish putting them in order.
I believe all your ideas would become much clearer if you could introduce one essential distinction: sex and gender are two different things.
If you’re interested in exploring that difference further, there is a text by Colin Wright that explains it quite clearly: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/one-reality-two-sexes-and-endless
Once you understand the difference between those two concepts, many things become clearer.
We all have a sex, one or the other, without exception, because that is simply how nature works. There is no third sex, nor an intermediate sex, nor something half and half.
As for gender, what we are talking about here is everything related to your own exploration: are you feminine? Yes, no, a little, somewhat, not at all, more or less? Do you feel that other women behave differently, as if they “knew” something that escapes you, or as if they moved through the world in ways that feel foreign to you? That is gender. It is about how we are and how we feel in relation to behavior and emotion. There are not only two options there—as there are with sex—we are all more or less masculine or feminine. And what does it mean to be masculine or feminine? In a certain sense, masculinity and femininity are indeed connected to sex, because there are undeniable correspondences between our bodies and our brains; but that correspondence is limited by many different factors.
I assume you are familiar with the theory that explains homosexuality through hormonal factors acting during gestation. It is the best explanation we currently have for understanding how a cross-sex sexual orientation is possible.
We can borrow that explanation and see how it fits with gender identity. This would allow us to understand its biological component. Yes, it is very possible that just as sexual orientation depends to a large extent on biological factors, identity does as well.
That said, it is likely that in identity—and very probably in orientation too—environmental, cultural, and psychological factors are also present.
So what is non-binary identity, the one you identify with? It is a way of feeling that does not fit the majority pattern, which, despite its variations, can still be called more typical. In most people, we could say that their identity and their sexual orientation are fairly “aligned” with their sex.
It is also important to point out something notable: it is very common for people with an atypical identity to also have an atypical sexual orientation. While this is not true in every case, I think it helps us understand these questions.
As for whether gender identity is some kind of “soul” we are born with, or whether it is something more fluid, my understanding so far is that for some people it is more intrinsic than for others. Perhaps, in cases where it seems more fluid, it would be more accurate to say that it simply took longer to become defined, probably because of external influences that prevented that person from showing themselves and accepting themselves as they truly are.
I especially enjoyed the part of your notes where you show how you feel, who you are, and how you explore both your own feelings and those of others, as well as how others see you. I see great curiosity and honesty in your search. You may not agree with everything, but I think that distinction helps clarify the issue considerably. In any case, I found it valuable to read you and to think through these questions through your notes.
Thank you for your notes, and warm regards.
The terfs have it right when they say that a Woman is just an adult human female. There's no such thing as woman as a gender, it's entirely imagined. And whilst you can then play around with the "idea" of being a woman, the fact is that even engaging with this imaginary concept requires you to reinforce harmful stereotypes.
So much of what you describe is the experience of being human, of having one's own brain and body and not having access to the inner thoughts or feeling of anyone else but oneself. That, compounded by dose of projection and mind reading. Someone looking at me might think I am girly, and definitely I appear girly, but my personality is much more typically masculine than my gender non conforming mother (never wears anything feminine, no makeup, couldn't operate a blow dryer if her life depended on it, but who was a home maker and relied on my dad for most things). I am not a mother, never had a biological clock moment in my life. I am married to a guy who works in construction but I am the breadwinner and run the house, take care of all the complicated financial stuff. If one person is nonbinary than we are all nonbinary.
First we are human. We have human experiences. Our bodies and their stock equipment cause particular experiences to happen (in my case endometriosis). But all the internal and external judgment is social.
You judge your roommate for acting a certain way with her friends and decide that could not be you. But you also enjoy spending time with friends sharing activities you enjoy. Liking stuff isnt gendered! To laugh and have fun is a universal experience, even when the input causing the laughter is different.
Focus more on commonalities and you will find yourself connected, rather than disconnected. Both to yourself, and to the reality of others' experiences that exist outside of external assumptions.
Be assertive. Be literary. Be technical. Be artistic. None of these things is gendered - unless you want to tell a small child you love who runs fast and tells fart jokes and plays princess dress up and is really into racing bikes that they have to pick a personality from a fixed menu with no substitutions.
I could never break a spirit that way.