Parsing Non-binary
Different perspectives with opposing moral demands
Last year I ran this poll on Twitter:
My intent was not to pass judgement on those who call themselves non-binary, but to question the different ways in which we individually understand the statement “I am non-binary”, and place it into our worldview.
Broadly speaking, I believe that there are three somewhat overlapping ways of viewing the label non-binary, each of which comes with its own preconceptions and moral imperatives.
That it is like sexuality.
That it is like a psychiatric disorder
That it is like a social trend or statement
Given the typical views of my Twitter followers, the results of my straw poll were a foregone conclusion really, but I wanted to examine each of these perspectives in turn as generously as possible.
1 - That it is like sexuality.
To say that non-binary is like a sexuality is to state that it represents some inherent and important truth about the person: that they feel like neither a man or woman, because they simply are neither of those things. Non-binary then is not a chosen label, so much as a demand for recognition outside of a binary system of gender that they genuinely are not part of. Coming out as non-binary is a journey of self-discovery and self-acceptance, and requires standing up to a world intolerant of outsiders, of those who deviate from the accepted norm. To proudly say you are non-binary in this worldview means a rejection of constricting gender boxes, it means declaring that you are outside, and that society is too narrow by demanding that you fit yourself into one of two regressive options.
From this perspective, non-binary is something to be recognised and accepted, embraced and celebrated. Truly progressive voices would surely welcome those brave enough to reveal that they are non-binary in a harsh and uncaring world and, though it may not be something that a “cis” person can understand, allies can listen to these stories, platform them, defer to their personal experiences and demand space be made for them. As with gay, lesbian and bisexual people before them, non-binary people simply want to be recognised as valid on their own terms.
2 - That it is like a psychiatric disorder
To say that non-binary is like a psychiatric disorder is to say that it represents a maladaptive response to the trauma that highly gendered society inflicts upon the person. Where the objectification, sexualisation and unrealistic demands of society leads some to eating disorders or self-harm as acts of personal control, so non-binary becomes something similar: a dissociative abnegation of bodily sex.
This is most visible when considering girls and women choosing to bind their breasts to obscure “feminine” curves and adopt a more androgynous appearance. Binding can cause permanent physical damage, and many interpret this willingness to annihilate female sex characteristics as an attempt to escape the male gaze, similar to the breast-ironing in some parts of Africa. Harming your body while pursuing an identity that rejects that it is even a female one at all seems self-evidently a psychiatric delusion to some.
From this standpoint, those saying they are non-binary need to be helped, to be understood with compassion as victims of a society that treats female bodies in particular as commodities, that consumes endless pornography, that tolerates endemic rape and violence against women. These are individuals trying to opt-out of a society that they do not feel they fit into, driven by increasingly individualist politics to internalise projected inadequacies and seek the solutions of self-empowerment when it is society as a whole that needs to change.
3 - That it is like a social trend
In this instance, non-binary is just a label, no matter how deeply held the personal convictions. Like goths and mods and punks and new romantics, it is a purely social phenomenon, a labelling of a certain brand of non-conformism. From hair, to dress, to body-modification, there is little that is “new” about it, other than the astonishing extent to which political and corporate establishment have rushed to embrace it.
A lot of the political weight from the alternative scenarios can still exist, ie it can genuinely be a reaction to and rejection of repressive gendered norms, an act of resistance to objectification and hypersexualisation. A rejection of “the binary” is a rejection of “the system”. In this sense, to be “neither man nor woman” is a judgement of what society demands men and women should be.
Seen from this viewpoint, some might consider “non-binary” to be a statement that potentially critiques the harms that gendered society does to individuals, and considers the adoption of this identity a politicised one. Others may view it through a more reactionary or divisive lens, considering this social trend reflective of narcissistic individuals that need to grow up and get over themselves.
I suspect there are elements of truth to all of these in different individuals and their different choices to adopt “non-binary” as an identity, and that the spread of motivations and perceptions (ironically) differs between male and female. For some people, their sexuality is what leads them to feel uncomfortable with societal norms, and non-binary becomes an expression of that discontent. For others, trauma or abuse in their lives will lead to dissociation and an attempt to flee the parts of their bodies that they felt made them victims. And some will just enjoy the haircut, the clothes, the sense of belonging to a subculture, or even the attention and validation.
The problem really is that each of these three perspectives on what non-binary means leads to a different social response:
If it is like sexuality, it should be recognised and validated
If it is like self-harm, it should be healed and prevented
If it is like a social trend or statement, then it demands no particular recognition
The first two create diametrically opposed moral imperatives. The third creates a messy battleground onto which polarised political beliefs can play out.
Non binary people are valid, why are you ignoring them or trying to stop them being who they are?
Non-binary people are mentally unwell, why are you pandering to them and letting kids get caught up in self harm?
Non-binary people are nothing special, why are you trying to let them put an “X” on their passport instead of just saying male or female?
In some sense a declaration of self-identity is irrelevant to anyone else, but these things don’t happen in isolation - it is the demand that this identity be recognised as legitimate by everyone else that creates the issue. The claim to be “non binary” is not simply one of having androgynous or nonconforming presentation, but to be neither man nor woman, and to be recognised as such through greater “inclusion” throughout society. The expression of this identity is entirely through a combination of unremarkable external gender nonconformity, possibly some (sex-dependent) self-harm, and a demand that everyone else never refer to them as a man or woman.
From the “sexuality” perspective, any sense of bodily dissociation or discomfort cannot be seen as a psychiatric issue - something to be reconciled - but part of that struggle against societal expectations. The journey of self-actualisation can be constrained neither by societal nor bodily limitations, and any attempt to do so is seen as harm. Trying to encourage someone to feel comfortable in their own skin becomes conversion therapy, because that is only projecting societal expectations onto that body, rather than allowing it to be moulded to fit the true, inner self.
On the other hand, those who see it like a psychiatric issue consider it the opposite way, as enabling and pandering to a self-destructive delusion, and from the trend perspective this is all reinforcing rather than challenging gender stereotypes.
The moral imperatives of these perspectives are in opposition, and there is no way of winning over someone with a different understanding of “non-binary” without first getting them to abandon their own position.
Which is why attaching letters to the ever-expanding LGB acronym is an approach that has been both as effective as it has been polarising. By simple association, it presupposes that all of these letters are on some level “like” sexuality, and thus brings all of the moral demands for recognition into play. It forces all discussions into the “sexuality” framing from the outset as an unchallengeable baseline, leaving no room for a different perspective.
The starting points make compromise and dialogue impossible.