You can't gatekeep being nonbinary. Not unless you're prepared to define it explicitly, which will exclude many people - and not everyone will agree with your definition either.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I said just because. Not that effeminate men aren’t capable of being nonbinary, merely that it is not sufficient (or necessary for that matter). You have to like actually not identify as entirely a man.

But it’s not my place to fight I’m very much in the binary side of transness.

[–] tan00k@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Whose authority says it's not sufficient? If they say they are nonbinary, they are nonbinary.

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

OP means “don’t assume someone is non-binary because they are an effeminate man” and not “you aren’t non-binary just because you are an effeminate man”

[–] tan00k@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I suppose that's possible, but the thing you say OP is not saying is literally a quote. So at best it's worded poorly.

[–] The_Lopen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except they literally said that

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Their intent with the message was clearly less-than-literal. They tried to clear things up in replies but failed. I think it is quite clear that they meant no one any harm, and simply failed to convey their idea properly.

[–] The_Lopen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

The comment itself should be edited to reflect the original intent, then. People can't just say stupid and hyperbolic things and not be held socially accountable.

[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 3 points 9 months ago

This is a miscommunication, you two are not really in disagreement as far as I can see. If someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND {they say they're non-binary} => {they are non-binary}. However if someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND does NOT {say they're non-binary}...... Then it's not sufficient.