Terri Murray explains how contemporary views on non-binary genders simply beg the question of two distinct genders. Circular reasoning or begging the question is a fallacy in which the speaker’s conclusion is presupposed in his premise(s).

New semantics seem to be entering public discourse and academia at an alarming rate. From ‘trans kids’, to ‘intersectionality’, ‘Islamophobia’, ‘TERFs’, the ‘Alt Right’ and ‘liberal eugenics’, many new terms have been unquestioningly adopted and incorporated into our everyday vocabulary. With new words come new ideas, and sometimes these neologisms function as Trojan horses. Often, when we accept that proffered neologisms are meaningful (e.g. by using them) we have already granted too much theoretical ground to those who introduced them in the first place.

Take for example the prolific use of the term ‘non-binary’ (as a noun). If someone describes herself as ‘non-binary’, this presupposes that other people, or indeed most people, are binary, which is a conclusion that needs to be argued for, not taken for granted. Circular reasoning or begging the question is a fallacy in which the speaker’s conclusion is presupposed in his premise(s). If nobody is binary because the idea that the human species breaks down into two uniform ‘personality types’ is absurd, then saying that you are non-binary is sort of redundant.

‘Take for example the prolific use of the term ‘non-binary’ (as a…