intersex people disagree, and i'm clearly talking about not identifying with the traits that society-at-large attributes to the sexes and not that you have a vagina but dont identify as having a vagina (which would also be valid but im not going to argue with you on this)

▲

bobalob a day ago | parent [-]

> intersex people disagree

Not really. Each of these conditions can be understood and described in terms of male and/or female sex development. The "spectrum" rhetoric obfuscates detail.

> the traits that society-at-large attributes to the sexes

This is just sexist stereotyping though. Doesn't mean you're neither woman nor man if you don't adhere to these stereotypes. That's absurd.

The problem with "non-binary" is that it is inherently sexist in the worldview it describes.

	▲	93po 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Not really. Each of these conditions can be understood and described in terms of male and/or female sex development. The "spectrum" rhetoric obfuscates detail. im not sure i follow. you can have either XY and XX chromosomes, but how your body develops depends on a ton of things, and there are millions of people who have non-traditional development (or complete non-development) of secondary sex characteristics. yes, we're all humans, and we all have a fundamental baseline of how our bodies ideally develop in terms of being a reproductive species, but it's vast oversimplification to say either you have a dick or puss and there's no consideration needed for when things are more complicated than that i should have been more clear and used gender instead of sex. > The problem with "non-binary" is that it is inherently sexist in the worldview it describes. i think using a label like non-binary is because of the sexist worldview that already exists. if it was normalized and not frequently ostracized for people with penises to wear women's clothing, makeup, heels, have long hair, do their nails (or the same in the opposite direction), then i agree we maybe wouldnt need a label like non-binary.