The idea behind identifying as non-binary is just to frame your personal identity in terms that others are more familiar with.
Nonbinary people recognize that most others view sex (or more specifically gender) in binary terms and use that framework as a scaffold to help others understand.
Sure, there’s an aspect of “master’s tools cannot destroy the master’s house” but at least they’re trying to meet others halfway. Why aren’t you?
I don’t think OPs post is criticizing non binary as a sexual identity, it’s just making a linguistic / math joke about the phrasing we use to describe it.
Let me express my sincerest admiration for your way with words. All I could think was, “what? no. that’s not how that works. what?”, and here you are actually explaining why it’s nonsense.
Objection: the set of sets is not a set. This is a different level of binary, therefore making you simultaneously binary and non-binary depending on perspective.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Rules:
Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
I’m conservative and this is deep.
The idea behind identifying as non-binary is just to frame your personal identity in terms that others are more familiar with.
Nonbinary people recognize that most others view sex (or more specifically gender) in binary terms and use that framework as a scaffold to help others understand.
Sure, there’s an aspect of “master’s tools cannot destroy the master’s house” but at least they’re trying to meet others halfway. Why aren’t you?
I don’t think OPs post is criticizing non binary as a sexual identity, it’s just making a linguistic / math joke about the phrasing we use to describe it.
Let me express my sincerest admiration for your way with words. All I could think was, “what? no. that’s not how that works. what?”, and here you are actually explaining why it’s nonsense.
god, this was the most intelectual comment session that i ever see, ditching reddit was the correctly decision
For REAL. I’m so used to expecting awful comments on a relatively popular meme sub but it was so tame here.
Objection: the set of sets is not a set. This is a different level of binary, therefore making you simultaneously binary and non-binary depending on perspective.
If the set of sets is not a set then why did you just define it as a set? Checkmate.
I really wanted to reply “checkmate” but you already added it yourself. So instead I posted this. You’re welcome internet!