the best way to figure out if someone identifies as something odd has to do with a need for a quirk to avoid being "basic."
I think that's the default anti-woke explanation for this kind of behaviour, or as I said in the post itself: "The default explanation among the woke-sceptical is that such people are 'snowflakes': they want to be seen as special and unique, but are hampered in this goal by the critical defect of not actually possessing any special or unique traits. Hence, they dress up their perfectly ordinary traits using language which implies that they are far more unusual than they really are."
What I'm trying to get it with my post is that maybe people aren't just describing themselves as "ambivert", "non-binary" or "grey-asexual" because they don't want to be seen as "basic": perhaps some of the people describing themselves as such are legitimately (and understandably) confused about what the terms in question refer to.
So maybe it's like skinny vs. curvy, you'd rather be a manly man, but if you can't be manly you'd rather be nonbinary.
There's been some recent discussion on this forum about how, prior to coming out, trans women tend not to be exemplars of "peak masculinity" (and vice versa for trans men), so identifying as trans could be thought of as a sort of "you can't fire me, I quit!" response when a person realises that they're losing a game which they were entered into against their will.
I don't dispute this hypothesis, and it certainly jibes with my experience of trans people I know personally. But I don't think this is necessarily true of non-binary people. As I said in the post, if you've been raised in an environment in which even banal and unremarkable instances of gender non-conformity are interpreted as red flags for gender dysphoria, you could be forgiven for believing that only "peak masculine" men are actually men (and vice versa). Whereas twenty years ago we would've said "Alice doesn't wear makeup and likes playing rugby, but she's still a woman - she's not a man, or something other than man or woman."
Or if you've consumed a great deal of porn (which almost exclusively depicts fictional characters with hypersexual/nymphomaniac sex drives), you might come away with the inaccurate impression that the average person is always rearing to go, and hence that your (perfectly normal) level of sex drive is below average - something intermediate between sexual and asexual, when in fact it's nothing of the kind. Hence "grey-asexual". It's the social-justice equivalent of men feeling inferior about the size of their perfectly average dicks because porn has given them a skewed impression of what the average dick looks like.
What I'm trying to get it with my post is that maybe people aren't just describing themselves as "ambivert", "non-binary" or "grey-asexual" because they don't want to be seen as "basic": perhaps some of the people describing themselves as such are legitimately (and understandably) confused about what the terms in question refer to.
Sure, and I think that's a good point, some people will always take the rhetoric too seriously and break the kayfabe. But it's still downstream of feeling that X is something that needs to be labeled about oneself, or that Y is a valid axis on which to build one's identity. There's a lot of groundwork that goes into those assumptions.
It's sort of the Nietzsche-an idea of Achilles acting without thinking to satisfy his desires and labeling that the good, versus the slave morality of overthinking and labeling everything.
I think what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Gray-Asexuals aren't acting in bad faith when they do so, they legitimately think that label describes them. What I'm saying is that their need to label it is downstream of their attributes or lacks. I don't think there's anything consciously false about their cope, but it's still a cope. The need for an explanation for their own misery is at the root of their need to explain themselves and identify themselves.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think that's the default anti-woke explanation for this kind of behaviour, or as I said in the post itself: "The default explanation among the woke-sceptical is that such people are 'snowflakes': they want to be seen as special and unique, but are hampered in this goal by the critical defect of not actually possessing any special or unique traits. Hence, they dress up their perfectly ordinary traits using language which implies that they are far more unusual than they really are."
What I'm trying to get it with my post is that maybe people aren't just describing themselves as "ambivert", "non-binary" or "grey-asexual" because they don't want to be seen as "basic": perhaps some of the people describing themselves as such are legitimately (and understandably) confused about what the terms in question refer to.
There's been some recent discussion on this forum about how, prior to coming out, trans women tend not to be exemplars of "peak masculinity" (and vice versa for trans men), so identifying as trans could be thought of as a sort of "you can't fire me, I quit!" response when a person realises that they're losing a game which they were entered into against their will.
I don't dispute this hypothesis, and it certainly jibes with my experience of trans people I know personally. But I don't think this is necessarily true of non-binary people. As I said in the post, if you've been raised in an environment in which even banal and unremarkable instances of gender non-conformity are interpreted as red flags for gender dysphoria, you could be forgiven for believing that only "peak masculine" men are actually men (and vice versa). Whereas twenty years ago we would've said "Alice doesn't wear makeup and likes playing rugby, but she's still a woman - she's not a man, or something other than man or woman."
Or if you've consumed a great deal of porn (which almost exclusively depicts fictional characters with hypersexual/nymphomaniac sex drives), you might come away with the inaccurate impression that the average person is always rearing to go, and hence that your (perfectly normal) level of sex drive is below average - something intermediate between sexual and asexual, when in fact it's nothing of the kind. Hence "grey-asexual". It's the social-justice equivalent of men feeling inferior about the size of their perfectly average dicks because porn has given them a skewed impression of what the average dick looks like.
Sure, and I think that's a good point, some people will always take the rhetoric too seriously and break the kayfabe. But it's still downstream of feeling that X is something that needs to be labeled about oneself, or that Y is a valid axis on which to build one's identity. There's a lot of groundwork that goes into those assumptions.
It's sort of the Nietzsche-an idea of Achilles acting without thinking to satisfy his desires and labeling that the good, versus the slave morality of overthinking and labeling everything.
I think what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Gray-Asexuals aren't acting in bad faith when they do so, they legitimately think that label describes them. What I'm saying is that their need to label it is downstream of their attributes or lacks. I don't think there's anything consciously false about their cope, but it's still a cope. The need for an explanation for their own misery is at the root of their need to explain themselves and identify themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link