>>44
Thanks for the clarification, I'm afraid I was too unclear.
When I say "gender" I mean what is commonly refered to as "sex", i.e. the physical difference of bodies. That is why I mentioned hermaphrodites as a possible third "gender" as opposed to a third sex.
Non-Binary - unless it refers specifically to hermaphrodites or the like - does not refer to this. It refers to gender perception, gender stereotyping, gender roles, generalisations (with or without merit) and so on. This is pretty much what you said in your response to OP. I call this "sexuality" because it represents an attitude towards gender (defined first and foremost through physical traits) specifically. It does not have to be about attraction or lust, but I would still argue that the desire to label someone "a boy or a girl" is a sexual interest. The only way this were not the case is if we were to accept something in addition to "mere" gender to be equivalent to the terms "boy" and "girl" (like 'masculinity'). But this I find to be a misuse of terminology, since it would deprive the terms of their actual meaning in favour of some sort of complex of associations that don't seem to be clearly defined.
I am non-binary in the sense that I reject the meaningfulness of terms like "feminine man", and - probably unlike you - I concede that the only thing reasonably gendered are genitalia. Every additional use of the labels is either application of probability or simply random association. The latter is inherently irrelevant, the prior at best a useful instrument but not a measure for identity.
Though to be fair, I might be conflating the term "non-binary" a little. I have heard stances similar to mine be described as "agender", for example.
Hope that didn't irritate you. I think we're almost in complete agreement, it's just a question of terminology. Our primary difference would probably come down to this;
>>43
>Of course, we could just eliminate the concept of gender entirely and alloPost too long. Click here to view the full text.