this interpretation (which I share) makes much more sense than the one we're supposed to use
which one makes more sense, really?
---
RT @Aella_Girl
In general (but not always), i default interpret "I'm nonbinary" to mean "I don't like when people have gendered assumptions about me"
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1382485262584799232
"I'm declaring my high likelihood of being a behavioral outlier, not nearly fitting into either bimodal behavioral space cluster, & forcing a cache miss"
or
"I'm making an ontological statement about the nature of sex/gender by saying mu, stepping outside of the label frame"
both, really, if I'm being honest, but the former is MUCH more useful than the latter, & achieves the desired goals more neatly
vast majority of people (incl. most nonbinaries) don't have a clear conception of what it means to BE a gender
this stems from label/box confusion
the indexing problem shows up here as well
gender as something you are (innate) vs something you do (performative) is a fraught topic, one even most progressives don't get
this is apparent when trans gender essentialists claim you can't change gender
---
RT @pee_zombie
the most fundamental ideological conflict is btwn folders & tags; the ontological differences btwn hierarchical & associative indexing underlie every major object-leve…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1377404570452680707
you can't have both; is gender innate, and dysphoria only resolvable by transition? or is it performative, and you could simply change your behavior?
same with sexual orientation; can you learn to be gay (performative) or are you born gay (innate)
nonbinaries reject this scheme
I don't really have much of a point here besides to plant my flag firmly in the performative/learned camp. it doesn't make any sense to "not be a girl", it just doesn't parse. what you mean is "I see myself as not being someone who performs femininity predominantly"
a big issue here is that many people have made their answer to this question a fundamental part of their identity (something they are), and hence cannot evaluate the arguments rationally, lest it prove to be less solid than they imagined (something they do)