[Serious] Please convince me gender is binary

[The Grand Nudger]

I said sex was genetic and gender either conformed with sex or didn't.  I don't mind exploring the topic with you and I love your questions, because they usually make me think.
"If you're unwilling or hesitent to kill...does that make you less of a type of man?" If I defined a man as a killer then yes. I'm passive so in my eyes it doesn't make me less of a man, but in your eyes it might.
"If a female were more willing to kill..does that make her more of a type of man than you?" same answer. It still doesn't make either of them less of a man or woman in legal terms, or in societal terms.

Well, that's just the thing....it doesn't matter what you call yourself..I'm going to call you a girl from now on.  Tell me how that's different from you insisting on your own definitions of heteronormativity in the case of some non binary person?  Imagine what it would be like if I managed to get everyone else in our society to treat you like a girl, regardless of what you say or how you make your case that you are..indeed..a guy.

These things -are- considered in societal terms..and because of that, peoples societal beliefs do find their way into our laws. These things don't exist in a vacuum, they are not consequence-free.

Using Gae's words "one heteronormative gender binary here may belong to the other heteronormative gender binary" That's 2. Shell did the same thing "spectrum between femininity and masculinity" There is still no evidence I should change my definition of Gender to something other than male and female, guy/girl, he/she, woman/man.

|_____________Some type of MAN______________|_____________Some type of WOMAN__________|

You may be anywhere on your sliding scale with what EACH INDIVIDUAL identifies as what a man/woman is, but that's because you're not setting the goalposts in a definition (because it makes you feel less like what you want yourself to be like based on what your belief of it is supposed to be).  Societies don't function like that, they work with laws, infrastructure and policies to better that society.

Sure, you could stick to your guns by creating a semantic rule while failing to deny the contents of others comments that argue to the contrary, but that's all you'd be doing..and it's not actually true that you haven't seen any evidence to cause you to refine your definitions, you've simply decided not to in the face of it.   Meanwhile, that act has caused people considerable harm...so it's not as if it's an innocent act that effects no one else.  

Maybe try "some type of man/some type of woman" with male and female as two sets beneath encompassing the entirety of the gender construct spectrum? Both a male and a female can be "some type of" guy or girl as we describe either of those things. My brother is a Heather. My sister is a Frank. Obviously I;m not commenting on the presence of a penis when I say either of those things, even though I am certainly commenting on types of girls and guys in our society.

I don't feel tough today so today I feel like a sissy man. That works abslutely fine when you're just you being you. But going out into society and interacting like people are supposed to call you they/them/fi/ze/hir/hirs/zirs instictively is a little ridiculous, IMO. I feel like I'm being asked to identify people differently based on how they feel about themselves, or their internal biochemical systems work. It seems eerily familiar to my wife expecting me to read her mind to make her happy. I'd just prefer to ask you your name and call you steve.
I mean personally I don't care who you(the royal you) want to diddle, what you feel like on the inside, or what you're packing down below, as long as you can get the job done.

Or they could just call you Tack (or whatever your name is).  Speaking of, I honestly don't understand the problem..it's not as if we have trouble calling people what they want to be called in any other circumstance.   How often has a person introduced themselves to you as Joe..and then you've gone on to insist on calling them Nancy, because you have some semantic rule that states that every Joe is actually a Nancy?  

Not often, I'm guessing. Probably never.....and yet.....

So basically where I'm at is
1. sex is genetic. Yes there are the less than .08% that have neither or both or some weird XXY, but we teach people that humans have 20 digits and 2 eyes, etc. We don't say everyone has to have 20 digits, but it's the well established norm.
2. Gender conformity mirrors the genetic binary norm and is the most prevalent perspective.

I still haven't seen any reasons to call someone a zir or hir or non-binary or a unicorn or a helicopter as the meme goes. I would like to accept that gender is non-binary, I've yet to see a convincing layout of ideas though.

I still see no reason to call you Joe, Nancy. 

Actually I just had a thought. What if people being all judgey and like little classifying machines utilizing normative society, have made people who once felt normative, less like the norm they define as manly or womanly; precipitating them to question their gender identity and subsequently  addd to the societal confusion of gender identity? IS that thought just like totally off base?

Not at all.  It's the perpetual crisis of gender identity as an ever changing social construct. Recall, people who accept the origin and nuance of gender constructs aren't even the ones making people feel like shit this way (and worse). It's heteronormatives that do that to themselves and other heteronormatives..while also just generally being assholes to non normatives in puerile and senseless ways. Like insisting on calling Joe Nancy.... no matter how many times he tells you he's Joe.

You hit this earlier in your response, when you decided that you were a sissy today. We all know what happens to sissies, right, especially sissy kids? Asses get beat. Either those beatings produce heteronormativity or they produce a damage non normative person. This may be why we go to great lengths to hide those "sissyfing" things about ourselves as we develop..bu it also goes a long way to explaining why people assert the heteronormative things...not because they're true or even because we actually think they are as a genuine belief....but because there are consequences for divergence.

For a very long time, non normativity could get you killed...and it still happens. That;s one hell of an incentive to keep your trap shut and let the heteronormative train roll right on past you. Meanwhile, there have been cultures in past where non binarism and non normativity were considered sacred, even, and those societies seemed to be free of this social dynamic so common to heteronormativity. All of this is to say that we don't have to do this to ourselves or to each other, and it's not actually informed by any specific fact of one sex or another..... we just decide that we're going to, and rationalize that after the fact as though it were..apparently.