Thanks for the confession :D

I think you are mistaken actually the different types of animal are frogs and not frogs

Are these elephants in the room right now?

Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant.

You'd think so, and yet...

Does the gender of all non-self-containing genders contain itself? This is the fundamental question of gender theory.

You can argue that about any label of any kind but we have to live in reality, which means people are going to sort themselves and others. “We know who we are by who we are not.“ I just don’t see that stopping.

We also have to acknowledge inequality. It’s like “black owned businesses.” Yeah in an equal society we would all just say “businesses” but we don’t live in one so we need to highlight a group of business owners that are inherently at a disadvantage.

That's so sad to me. From my POV being non-binary isn't aggressive. It's just that there are more important things to worry about than gender.

I'm going to use "you" a lot in this post but know I'm using the global definition, I'm not directly addressing you.

Right, but you must realize that is your perception and not reality.

If you'll allow me to take some liberties and use you as an example :

They are asking you to change your perception of them.
You are asking them to change/disregard their reality to conform to your existing perception.

One can be done, one cannot. They'll still be what they are and now their way of defining themselves is forbidden, by who? Why? This path seems completely irrational.

And what value does your perception hold anyway? The meaning of every word, sound, and thought in your head is arbitrary, it's all made up. So obviously language needs to be calibrated with reality from time to time.

Language has changed to such an extreme degree that you wouldn't understand your own language 300, 1,000, 5,000 years ago. Why not be upset about that? Seems kinda silly to start a movement to rollback english to 1724, eh?

That is how I feel about those who oppose groups of people seeking to better define themselves. "I don't feel what they describe, they've organized millions of people who claim to feel the same way to fuck with me, I'm mad!"

TLDR, it's logical for language to change and people to carve out niches. Humans aren't born male and female only, so it seems silly to puritanically declare that because of an ancient understanding of humans, we should ignore modern biology.

From a post I made earlier this month, the intersex population in the United States alone would comprise 10% of the population of Nebraska. These are people born, quite literally, between gender. Non-binary.

“Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states.

The state of having two states and the state of not-having-two-states is itself a two-state solution.

Unfortunately, once you rule out non-binary as a third state, you collapse back into the original binary state. Thus, non-binary exists as a quantum superposition between states, as we fluctuate between whether or not being non-binary is politically correct.

I want to upvote the OP for presenting an interesting discussion but downvote them for being wrong. This presents a case for a non-binary voting option.

A singular like button would still only express one portion of my sentiment. A third option could be many things, none are sufficient: a none or 0 or neutral option is effectively not voting, a sideways arrow or maybe state, or mixed state would express indecision or indeterminism rather than mixed feelings.

Therefore, I propose that a second positive-negative axis is required. The addition of these "sideways" arrows allow expressing 2 kinds of sentiment: towards the post content, and towards the poster themselves. I will not specify whether left or right is positive nor will i clarify which axis (x or y) corresponds to which kind of sentiment. I'm sure this undefined behavior will cause no problems.

Here is your composite vote in the new system: ↖️

Ah, a comment to test mods' susceptibility

when peshwari exists?