• tan00k@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

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

    • ferret@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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.

        • ferret@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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.