I don't know if gender is a binary, and as someone with the entitlements of a straight male, I'll never have to interact with that question in the same way indi

I don't know if gender is a binary, and as someone with the entitlements of a straight male, I'll never have to interact with that question in the same way individuals who find themselves incorrectly described by a binary version of gender do. That said, this article has a lot of problems, the most glaring one is right here: "If gender really is a spectrum, doesn’t this mean that every individual alive is non-binary, by definition? If so, then the label ‘non-binary’ to describe a specific gender identity would become redundant, because it would fail to pick out a special category of people. To avoid this, the proponent of the spectrum model must in fact be assuming that gender is both a binary and a spectrum." This argument falls apart on any real inspection. For example, lets assume I convinced everyone in our town that there is only night and day, no times in between; just blue or black sky. Now, one day a stranger happened upon our town that believes dusk and twilight are not really night or day, and because of that, a strict interpretation, such as the one I've convinced the townsfolk of, might be out of place. Now this stranger, when communicating to the townsfolks, uses the terms "day" and "night" in his arguments to convince th everyone of the more subtle, continuous nature days. He even talks about different "portions" of the day and night as being distinct times of day. Should everyone in the town somehow jump to the conclusion that the stranger believes days are both binary like the townsfolk were told, and more complicated like he professes? Or is that a really big stretch without any legs. Why would him using terms that are well understood, or based off of other well understood terms, be indication that he hold both sets of believes? When communicating about long held beliefs, its both respectful as well as affords faster understanding to use classical terms and new one intermixed. More importantly, to use terms that highlight the differences between the perspectives being considered. Its just an effective way of doing Graff's classic "They say/I say" approach to entering a conversation. And the author attempts to turn that into some weird dissonances is a rather weak and disingenuous move.