You don't still believe in the gender trinary, do you?
I’ve never “believed in” a gender trinary, as it’s just as restrictive and reductive as a gender binary or any other -arity. However, a lot of terminology and concepts, mine and others, reference the concept of -arity either directly or indirectly, so I discuss it as a facet of my definitions and elaborations since the idea of a binary and trinary are so pervasive. I am not advocating for any sort of “true” or inherently valid systemic -arity; there isn’t one. Hell, even those who do believe in a gender trinary can’t agree on what it specifically entails. So, please do not conflate encyclopedic writing about gender, which can include a discussion of -arity, for me advocating for or validating said system. On this blog, I talk a lot about gender theory, and sometimes that involves theorizing about the specifics of broken, unrealistic categorical systems. A good example of this would be my coining of the term “Trinteri”, a gender that exists admist the gender trinary. Here, a question was posed and I offered an answer because I thought it was an interesting question—plain and simple.
Beyond theory for theory’s sake, the practical reason I discuss -arity is because we live in a society that heavily fixates on it and we need language to talk about it because it effects us all. -arity designations allow us to talk about specific genders in relation to the binary/trinary that we are forcibly subjected to. That’s where their usefulness and functionality begins and ends, as far as I am concerned: discussions about exorsexism as it relates to -arity. For example, when I say an identity is considered “atrinary”, the purpose isn’t to force people into a new box or create a hierarchy of objective legitimization, but to specifically describe the relationship a gendered concept has with the gender binary/trinary— an oppressive concept.
Many, many people believe that “nonbinary” is a monolithic third gender that can be reduced to being “neither” (or none), with acceptable modes of expression being restricted to androgyny and gender-neutrality. The concept of a trinary is indeed becoming systemic and societal, albeit secondary to the more common, conservative, traditional and pervasive gender binary. It is the product of an attempt to move away from a binaristic point of view, but still falls short due to its reductive nature. Despite this, it has entered relatively common usage, even within the LGBT+ community. Both are palpable, both are culturally ingrained in different ways and to different degrees and both are bad for their own reasons, some of which overlap. I can provide examples and elaborate on any part of this if desired.
We must have a way to discuss oppression in concise terms. An issue can arise when it’s used to bolster the validity an identity due to proximity to the gender binary, which is a misuse of this language. If you can offer alternative terminology that can accomplish the same thing as well or better, I would be interested in reading about it.
Lastly, the tone of this ask is condescending and accusatory. Making an assumption about my stances, getting upset about it and then sending me this ask isn’t conducive to meaningful conversation. Stop projecting. I use this verbiage to streamline conversations about exorsexism and to discuss gender theory. If you used to believe in a gender trinary and used these terms as gender identities and personal descriptors, that’s your blunder, not mine. If you want to talk about this, send me another ask communicating your concerns and I will address them.
- Gent
