I don't know why you'd think I'd disagree with this - I don't have a problem with it conceptually or rhetorically. The only thing I think is missing is the conceptualisation of binary itself. Society has, at various times, changed what it means to be either masculine and feminine. There's nothing new in feeling like you don't belong in either masculine or feminine.... it's likely a pull back from an austere Victorian era and sexual repression.

People are just people and for what it's worth I think Hume is onto something. I went into it a little in my essay on Space for the Medium writers competition - and my view is essentially that the 'self' is the interplay between prior experience and new information made manifest in our geographical surroundings- consciousness is the spear tip at which this happens and the self ebbs-and-flows out and about.

If you change the input or you have conflicting messages from prior information. Such as society now thinks 'non-binary' is a thing (It's always been a thing) then you'll get a different reflected output. The self internal and external changes. The internal self raises cognitive dissonance and the external self resolves it either through emotional deflection or by making changes in space and you have different fashion choices, more androgyny as you carve a niche in the world around you as 'non-binary'.

I think Hume, you and your partner are bang on with this. I wouldn't be as crass as to say to your partner 'it's a phase' but I genuinely do think it's a societal phase and will resolve itself within a few years.

Great article - thoroughly enjoyed myself :o)