[quote] I’ve been “randomly” selected for this experience during about 50% of my trips through airport security since coming out as trans, so this is an almost guaranteed part of any round-trip flight I take.

I feel like obvious misstatements like 50% probability equating to “almost guaranteed” are becoming more common and seeing it in the context of this article makes me wonder if it’s part of a larger pattern of, not deception, but an unconscious bending of reality by using inaccurate words and phrases.

The author goes on to state they are non-binary and then almost immediately afterwards describes their male gender as their “real” gender. And then there is a reference to being their mother’s son at a young age.

I want to be respectful of this person, but I have no idea what they are. I’m not making any judgement about what they are - I am willing to accept that they are whatever they say they are. I just don’t know what the fuck it is.

If they were born biologically male and they now refer to their “real” gender as male, wouldn’t that make them not trans? If they were born biologically female and lived as female as a child, isn’t it being intentionally confusing to describe themselves as their mother’s son when referencing their childhood? And, regardless of the gender they were assigned at birth, how can they be non-binary but have a “real” gender that is male?

If I were to meet them in a social or professional setting, it wouldn’t matter. I don’t need to know what’s in their pants or what they identify as. But I can’t understand it in the context of an article that is centered around their NOT straight cis identify.

Is it intentional, or is it part of an increasing but inadvertent misuse of language best exemplified by the overuse of the word “literal”?

Or is it just attention seeking? I’ve now given this individual a lot of thought. If they had been clear and matter of fact, I would not have. You’re a woman, Ok, fine. You’re a man, Ok, fine. You are non-binary, Ok, I’m exhausted.