A reckoning is due. What has this nation done for persons of color? Disabled people? The original sin of America is slavery. It is shameful that black people have to take to the streets to demand that the police stop killing them disproportionately. Similarly, the Bible (both the old and new testaments) enjoin us all from placing stumbling blocks in front of the blind. Leviticus 19:14. Nonetheless, persons with disabilities (of which I am one) have the highest poverty rate and are killed by the police at a similar rate a persons of color (being developmentally disabled is highly menacing to a police officer, seriously). We have failed to confront these massive social inequities yet comes now the New York Times to force this issue upon us. If we were to account for the progress of the push for social justice for black and handicapped persons, it's clear that we have slid backwards for the average person (who isn't named Obama or Roosevelt). You can be a moral, principled person while rejecting the narrative of normalizing this lifestyle choice. And it is a choice: I have never met a transgendered baby but there are plenty of disabled ones.
This magazine and this paper love to constantly classify people by skin color and sex.
But fundamentally, people are just people. Skin color and sex are mere superficial differences. It would be far better if, most of the time, we could look past those things to see the far vaster commonality we all share.
But instead, this paper and this magazine have trained several generations of readers to see sex and skin color as defining characteristics. This leads to a pernicious situation where someone of a different sex or skin color is perceived as the "other" — reinforcing ancient tribal enmities. This is exactly what we don't need now.
Of course, there are times when it is important to pay attention to those things — for instance, when opposing bigotry and oppression. But the rest of the time, could you please give it a rest?
1
Fine, but realize that when you blur the lines, you had best be tolerant of the folks who may not have a clue as to how to address you, and don't have a snit if they make the wrong guess.
4
There is no such thing as a "non-binary" person. Since time immemorial there have only been two sexes - male and female. And two genders, male and female, no matter what some may wish and the NYT may wish to promote.
3
I read this article with sadness. Restrictive ideas of masculinity and femininity should be fought, not implicitly embraced by creating a category of nonbinary. There's no reason a man who wants to wear makeup and a beautiful dress should have to regard himself as nonbinary. That's putting arbitrary limits on what it means to be a man. The same holds true for a woman who wants to cut her hair and wear a bow tie. If Tucker Carlson is your beau ideal, go for it; you're still as much of a woman as any Victoria's Secret angel. The fact that social media validates the nonbinary phenomenon is no surprise. It's just one more example of social media serving as an echo chamber of bad ideas.
7
What you're missing here, coming from someone who is nonbinary, is that being labeled as male or female simply feels wrong. If you're female, imagine being called "sir". (Or vice versa - I don't know the gender of lettuce)
I don't think it's sad or a bad idea to have a defined third gender as so many cultures do--it only seems like a phenomenon if you refuse to look outside of the U.S. As a whole, the movement in English is a natural one. Languages evolve to allow their speakers to express themselves fully, and this evolution is what makes languages and cultures richer.
2
Women can wear pants (work boots, etc.) without anyone questioning their gender identity choices. They won this battle decades ago. When men can wear dresses (makeup, etc) with the same acceptance we won't be having this discussion because fashion will have been successfully separated from gender. Even an old white cis-gender male like me can see that we need to get beyond the arbitrarily stereotyped categories, so push on!
4
Agendas such as this is (part) of the reason American voters in the hundreds of millions turned out to vote for Donald Trump. Promoting the trans-normative agenda does nothing for people of color, disabled people, or the poor. This is a massive step backwards for social justice. That is, unless, social justice advocates never meant to encompass people outside of the middle-class....
11
The people portrayed in this article are struggling for acceptance, even self-acceptance, after enduring years of hatred. Should they just all go back in the closet so we can all continue to coddle Americans who can’t deal with change or differences? Once you start sacrificing your principles to win elections, you’ll start to look like the modern, neoliberal Democratic Party.
3
Hi,
Hundreds of millions did not turn out to vote for Trump. Approximately 63 million voted for Trump while approximately 66 million voted for Clinton.
DB