fihlkki

Someone with XXY chromosomes, assuming a functional SRY gene and the genes downstream from that, will be male. Klinefelter's syndrome is a condition that only applies to males. The biological indicator of sex isn't the chromosomal configuration - that's just a proxy. The indicator is which pathway of sexual differentiation was triggered during development.

Sex is a binary because that's how anisogamic sexual reproduction works: females embodying the reproductive role organised around large gamete production, and for males, small gametes. This still accounts for disorders of sexual development too: a male with underdeveloped testes is still male, and a female with non-functional ovaries is still female. In some extremely rare occurrences of chimerism, a person could reasonably be said to embody both.

But that's not what anyone means when they use the term "non-binary" as an identity - it's expressed by people who are unambiguously male or female, but who feel that they don't fit into the cultural gender stereotypes of masculinity or femininity.

Non-binary only makes any sense in a society where men and women are defined by cultural notions of masculinity and femininity, rather than by sex.

It's one step further down the line from men and women being expected to behave in what are considered, respectively, masculine and feminine ways - the typical conservative viewpoint.

I find it quite bizarre that this is regarded as a progressive stance. It's like they've internalized the conservative view and come up with entirely new categories to work around it. When the sensible thing would have been to just reject the idea of gender stereotyping entirely.