Technically the existance of non-binaries also makes the binaries no longer binaries (due to increased optionality), so it would be fair to say everyone is non-binary
Good point!
Was looking for this comment. Thank you.
What up my hexadecimals
That’s just like Hangul, but for computer numbers.
Once you’re quite good at reading hexadecimals, you no longer need to look up binary, though you still need decimal-hexadecimal conversion, which is slower.
There are only 2 numbers
- 0/1
- all the other numbers
You joke but in astronomy there are only three elements. Hydrogen, helium, and metal. Which is just every other element together in one group.
Define “all the other numbers”. Do we include only natural numbers? Or all instegers? Or even rational numbers? Do we include imaginary numbers? How about complex numbers? Orbetter go for quaternions?
Define "all the other numbers
If its a number and it isn’t exactly 0 or 1.
You still haven’t defined number part
1 is the loneliest
Whatever, just wash your hands.
And don’t talk to me. I’d rather be surrounded by twelve “women” (i.e. trans men) in the men’s room (or even just women) than one cis guy who insists on having a conversation with me.
I’m not there to make friends.
Never understood this. Standing at a urinal and someone walks up and starts talking to me, like no dude shut up
I’ve had people doing it when I’m in the stall next to them. Leave me alone with my thoughts while I’m shitting, please.
But where else am I going to get the winning lotto numbers?
Have you considered your local tarot card reader?
Feel like there’s a Set Theory issue with this but I barely understand what little I can remember about it.
Does the gender of all non-self-containing genders contain itself? This is the fundamental question of gender theory.
No, it’s only Russell’s question.
deleted by creator
There are non-binary people who still believe genders can suit others, and even be played with as forms of role play …and there are also examples of null states, such as nullos and asexuals…
…so non-binary doesn’t necessarily make a new binary if they still believe gender is fine for others, or as a role play.
A better way to think about it might be as a gender spectrum or quadratic continuum of varied characteristics and overlapping body forms and sexual preferences/behaviour.
…queer.
Asexuality isn’t a gender. We’re just not attracted to people of any gender. Our gender identity is separate.
What if I’m naan binary (preferably garlic)?
when peshwari exists?
I’m peshwari-curious.
No…Keema is the right choice
If there already exists “a binary” then that says there are 2 states. “Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states. This could be unary (there is one kind of thing), trinary (there are now 3 things, the old 2 and new, secret 3rd thing), or really any n-ary set of n distinctly numbered things, so long as there aren’t only exactly 2 of them.
“Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states.
The state of having two states and the state of not-having-two-states is itself a two-state solution.
Unfortunately, once you rule out non-binary as a third state, you collapse back into the original binary state. Thus, non-binary exists as a quantum superposition between states, as we fluctuate between whether or not being non-binary is politically correct.
But can a two-state solution really work?
Going to the UN to propose my Quantum Superposition Solution to Violence in the Middle East.
Touché! Maybe we need a UN state shoved in beside the west bank to help keep an eye on things?
Yes and no.
But nobody is in the state of having two states, though. People range from being in one state to “it’s complicated”, but how would you be in exactly two states?
You wouldn’t, at least not while being observed.
I want to upvote the OP for presenting an interesting discussion but downvote them for being wrong. This presents a case for a non-binary voting option.
A singular like button would still only express one portion of my sentiment. A third option could be many things, none are sufficient: a none or 0 or neutral option is effectively not voting, a sideways arrow or maybe state, or mixed state would express indecision or indeterminism rather than mixed feelings.
Therefore, I propose that a second positive-negative axis is required. The addition of these “sideways” arrows allow expressing 2 kinds of sentiment: towards the post content, and towards the poster themselves. I will not specify whether left or right is positive nor will i clarify which axis (x or y) corresponds to which kind of sentiment. I’m sure this undefined behavior will cause no problems.
Here is your composite vote in the new system: ↖️
The choice between a traditional up-down vote and a new non-up-down vote must have been a tough one.
My pronouns are infinite/recursion
Genders in the Dutch language: common and neuter
Genders in the Russian language: “actually, we are families”
In Russia; you don’t gender yourself, Russian genders you.
“We don’t need articles, but we have a fuck ton of grammatical genders”
Says the same country that also fears non-binary gender identities, that’s actually kinda ironic
One day aliens are going to meet us and wonder what happened in our evolution that made us biased towards seeing every noun in groups of two, except for rules of nouns which are in groups of three.
I need examples or I don’t understand.
Male-female, darkness-light, plant-animal, ying-yang, mind-body, earth-heaven, spiritual-physical, prime-composite, even-odd
3 laws of motion, thermo, robotics, of dielect, and Trinity assignment.
Something strange about us that it is easier to think of opposites but following 3 rules.
Most of these groups are simply “A” and “Everything not A”. Either a number is odd or it is even. Either a place is lit up or it is dark.
That being said there are also some cases in there where there is more than just two categories (like male-female or plant-animal) but we, for the most part, only think about the most important / biggest ones.
All of this probably comes down to the fact that in order to make sense of the world or brain constantly tries to put things into categories to quickly assess what something is or isn’t. And it makes sense that the easiest way to categorize things is by just going “Is this A or B”?
Sure it makes a degree of sense. It is just easier to look at things that way, less cognitive load. It just didn’t have to be that way. We could have liked putting categories in groups of three.
That’s every binary, though. False are everything that’s not true. Ones are everything that’s not zero.
plant-animal
I identify as a mushroom
That’d effectively be a nested binary system
Fuck Aristotel
Fuck him yourself coward
If only I was a dog
I love when people say they hate Hippocrates on social media
You could’ve said that it’s Zena’s paradox
Male, Female, and a Secret Third Thing
Ah, a comment to test mods’ susceptibility
Neuchacho
More like Man, Woman and 60 plus different other categories even good sports in the first two categories don’t tend to be bothered to learn about.
It’s not that it’s secret it’s that if you don’t ask for specifics we assume you don’t care, don’t know there are specifics or you really just don’t want to know.
Us Enbyfolk respecting that you probably don’t need to be burdened with actual specifics or interpreting that knowledge as being additional social pressure is us being polite.
