"If gender, like height, is to be understood as comparative or relative, this would fly in the face of the insistence that individuals are the sole arbiters of

"If gender, like height, is to be understood as comparative or relative, this would fly in the face of the insistence that individuals are the sole arbiters of their gender. Your gender would be defined by reference to the distribution of gender identities present in the group in which you find yourself, and not by your own individual self-determination. It would thus not be up to me to decide that I am non-binary." This is an interesting argument, but I wonder if we really are logically forced to see it as such. If we see people sorting themselves into two social status groups, one male group where males competes with other males, and one female group where females compete with other females, then what we have is a comparative definition that individuals choose. A non-binary would be individuals that either competes in both groups or neither. From looking at the animal kingdom, it is hard to not notice the relation between social status and gender specific behavior. A male can be defined as a individual competing with other males using male behavior as defined by that male group. Between two groups, males of one could behave like females of the other and they would still be defined as male behavior.