Non-binary people are valid!
In other words…there is no descriptor for non-binary, you just are it.
So…what does the word mean then?
And why are we supposed to care?
Non-binary people are valid!
In other words…there is no descriptor for non-binary, you just are it.
So…what does the word mean then?
And why are we supposed to care?
Comments
18 responses to “Just be it”
Well, I think I found my next Halloween costume.
“No … guess again!”
But if you’re a White nonbinary person, you absolutely must not call yourself “three spirit”!
https://nonbinary.wiki/wiki/Ethnicity_and_culture#Tips_for_nonbinary_people_trying_not_to_be_racist
GW. but what if I want to call myself a free spirit?
What is with this clapping crap? Who claps? It’s weird…
The clapping indicates it’s claptrap.
I don’t quite get all the clapping, but I think it’s supposed to be a written representation of someone who claps or bangs a table to emphasize words. It looks very silly to me, always.
Since the only people who aren’t nonbinary are Barbie and GI Joe, that makes all of us NB. What a relief! I can dress how I want now. Thanks!
And Sastra wins an internet for her #1. Nicely done!
“lady bug” looks pretty binary to me; maybe “person bug” would be better.
I’m taking the clapping as three, slow, sarcastic claps. Puts an entirely different spin on things.
A friend who I think calls herself non-binary posted a meme about what it’s like to be non-binary. Paraphrased: “it’s like everybody is going through one of two doors, and you realize the doors are just standing there and there are no walls and you can just go around them.” Yes, so apparently only these special people can see this, and nobody can learn this, and it doesn’t actually describe everybody in the world, and these special people can demand you muck with language because they are the only ones who see there are no walls.
The claim to be special. I am SO tired of it.
Re #8
The claps in the original all immediately follow the headline on the same line. I don’t know why the captured version shows them on separate lines. As rendered here, they do look like sarcastic slow claps.
There is no way of distinguishing between non-binary and everyone else, as the only qualification needed is that declaration. That’s it.
Imagine some eyerolling with those claps, and you get where Ophelia was going I think.
Oh and then it turns out they weren’t even Ophelia’s applause.
Wouldn’t it by nice if people could just be Resistant to Stereotyped Sex-Roles, without pretending to be some new biological phenomenon?
But what if I’m not nonbinary, and I want to look nonbinary? Then I can’t do step 1. So what should I do?
Or would it be evil and appropriative of me to make myself look nonbinary if I’m not?
#1, “be nonbinary,” is a null set. It has no members, no cognitive content. #2, “wear what you like,” is certainly doable in theory. Sometimes, nobody makes what I would like to wear. Sometimes, it isn’t quite appropriate to wear what I would like. But generally there is something I like well enough to wear in most circumstances. But dressing how you like is fine, and has no necessary connection to gender claims of any kind. So, #2 is the only one that matters. “Nonbinary” is an empty superfluous irrelevancy.
As I’ve stated before, the proper response to hearing someone say, “I’m non-binary” is to reply, “Cool! You have a pulse!” Because the only ‘binary’ individual I can think of would be a living Chuck Norris meme (not Norris himself, who doubtless has some of the gender-traits assigned to women, like every human being ever). And of course no woman could ever be truly ‘binary’, since femininity is not only an impossibly high standard like masculinity, but also is loaded with contradictions that it includes its own fail conditions.
I just was reading an article complaining about laws restricting toplessness. The author kept referring to “people with breasts”. I eventually noticed that the author considers herself “non-binary”. I thought about this: no, the laws don’t restrict “people with breasts” at all, because a man with gynecomastia is almost never required to cover up. It’s about women only. At least one comment noted the author’s “non-binary” status is invisible, which the author took to prove her point, but it seemed to me at best to be irrelevant; she’s still female, and thus still subject to the law, which wouldn’t happen if she were a male person claiming to be “non-binary”.