OP means “don’t assume someone is non-binary because they are an effeminate man” and not “you aren’t non-binary just because you are an effeminate man”

[–] tan00k@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I suppose that's possible, but the thing you say OP is not saying is literally a quote. So at best it's worded poorly.

[–] The_Lopen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except they literally said that

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Their intent with the message was clearly less-than-literal. They tried to clear things up in replies but failed. I think it is quite clear that they meant no one any harm, and simply failed to convey their idea properly.

[–] The_Lopen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

The comment itself should be edited to reflect the original intent, then. People can't just say stupid and hyperbolic things and not be held socially accountable.

[–] Sadbutdru@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

This is a miscommunication, you two are not really in disagreement as far as I can see. If someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND {they say they're non-binary} => {they are non-binary}. However if someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND does NOT {say they're non-binary}...... Then it's not sufficient.