> I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gende

> I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gender stereotype. I am not an ideal manifestation of the essence of womanhood, and so I am non-binary. Just like everybody else. However, those who describe themselves as non-binary are unlikely to be satisfied with this conclusion, as their identity as ‘non-binary person’ depends upon the existence of a much larger group of so-called binary ‘cisgender’ people, people who are incapable of being outside the arbitrary masculine/feminine genders dictated by society. I believe this is a generational phenomenon. Each generation of social activists needs to fight for something new, otherwise they wouldn't be progressive. Logically, the author is right: we're all non-binary, so the self-identification as non binary seems to make no sense. However, emotionally it is valid: it is the very recognition that one has various characteristics ascribed to both genders that makes one feel as non-binary. It's quite different from ordinary "cis" people who are non-binary without realizing that. I believe the older generation of feminists understands that, but is not willing to emotionally accept it as valid.