Comment on Non-binary

• Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Also have you ever considered the fact that maybe you (or other people) don’t really care about gender labels because you were assigned as the gender you prefer? It seems a bit silly to criticise a group who currently faces a lot of discrimination based on their gender preference. Also are you aware that your argument is often used to discredit the experiences of and as a reason to discriminate against people who identify as non-binary?

  source

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It seems a bit silly to criticise a group … based on their gender preference

    Like, didn’t I just say that it’s the vibe of the word that I don’t like? Therefore either

    1. I am not criticizing any specific people at all because I’m just talking about how we use words; OR
    2. I am criticizing some people for their taste of words

    and not what you say at all IMO

    source
• Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  so what would you suggest people who do not want to be referred to as man or woman call themselves?

  source

  • mydoomlessaccount@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Blenders. Gender ephemeral. Intangibles. An even cooler fourth option, probably.

    There are tons of cool names you could go with when your identity lies outside of preconceived boundaries (and pretty much transcends them). But, non-binary’s pretty clinical-sounding, so I guess it’s easier to work into a professional setting or something.

    source

    • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Enbies? Although the base of the term does come back around to the original phrase.

      source
  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    grogsnarl the fifth, conqueror of silesia

    source
  • Stovetop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    On the gender spectrum?

    source

    • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It’s easy to call a discussion silly if it doesn’t affect you personally.

      source

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I just mean this whole premise. The idea that being nonbinary is its own binary. It’s a categorically different comparison. The “binaries” OP sets up are a:b versus (a+b):c, when really it should be a+b+c+d etc.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    rainbows?

    source
• halfway_neko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  yeah, that’s understandable. i’d never thought about it that way before.

  personally i use enby as a way to say that i am in the middle / don’t really care.

  i think the issue comes from the fact that saying non-binary means specifically non-{man,woman}. whereas i’ve always interpreted it as just non-“specific gender”.

  to me it’s the etc. of gender labels, but i realise that not everyone that i think it describes would want to identify with it.

  (and that means it becomes it’s own label, and now we have to figure out what to call everyone_else all over again. (maybe the whole idea of gender labels was rigged from the start))

  source