Height is a bad analogy for gender, since most peoples height are somewhere around the middle and fewer at the extremes. Handedness is a better analogy. Few pe

Height is a bad analogy for gender, since most peoples height are somewhere around the middle and fewer at the extremes. Handedness is a better analogy. Few people are ambidextrous, most people are at the extreme of the spectrum, either left-handed or right-handed. Since handedness is not politicized, nobody is claiming that it is logically impossible to be ambidextrous and that they have to "pick a side". Neither does anybody really deny that the majority of people do have a dominant hand. That said, a linear spectrum is obviously too simple for something as complex as gender. Take people with AIS. They are unambiguously male (XY) at the level of chromosomes, but in apperance unambiguously female, to the extent many don't know they are XY unless they happen to seek fertility treatment. Many probably never learn. So they are not really "in the middle", rather they are at two extremes at the same time. The article seem to suggest that "non-binary" people are just muddying the definitions in order to seem interesting. But something like AIS objectivity exists, and shows that a purely binary definition of gender is not sufficient to describe reality. That does not mean that most people can't comfortably consider themselves a single unambiguous gender.