LGBT is a very useful term that brings together many people with important civil rights claims. Classifying nonbinaries as having similar claims to gays & trans people threatens to dilute the concept
This is a good article, and you get it right: the oppressed class is people who refuse to conform to gender archetypes.
I will say though: although the word "non-binary" is new, people who refuse to conform to either feminine or masculine gender archetypes and have been oppressed have adopted it en masse at this point. And they've existed forever. You have your facts wrong.
If you look back in history, a bunch of those people who were oppressed for their failure to conform were quite resistant to adopting the term "male" or "female"; they DID reject the gender binary, and they got oppressed for it.
In some cases, their surrounding society told them to "choose" -- it was OK if they chose to fit the masculine archetype OR if they chose to fit the feminine archetype but they were gonna get punished if they didn't pick a binary side. OK to be a cis man or a trans woman who "passed", but not OK to be nonbinary -- this was an actual issue a lot of older people dealt with. You may not know the background, but that is the truth.
So although the term "non-binary" may be too prone to joiners, this population -- who wanted to not conform to EITHER traditional masculine OR traditional feminine archetypes -- was oppressed, is often still oppressed, and it is important to protect the class of people "who do not conform to gender archetypes". ("You can wear makeup and a dress, or you can wear jeans and a button-down shirt, but NOT BOTH.") And the reason YOU don't find them in poor areas is that they're getting beaten up and attacked for it. Still. Though less than in the 1970s or earlier.
This is a good article, and you get it right: the oppressed class is people who refuse to conform to gender archetypes.
I will say though: although the word "non-binary" is new, people who refuse to conform to either feminine or masculine gender archetypes and have been oppressed have adopted it en masse at this point. And they've existed forever. You have your facts wrong.
If you look back in history, a bunch of those people who were oppressed for their failure to conform were quite resistant to adopting the term "male" or "female"; they DID reject the gender binary, and they got oppressed for it.
In some cases, their surrounding society told them to "choose" -- it was OK if they chose to fit the masculine archetype OR if they chose to fit the feminine archetype but they were gonna get punished if they didn't pick a binary side. OK to be a cis man or a trans woman who "passed", but not OK to be nonbinary -- this was an actual issue a lot of older people dealt with. You may not know the background, but that is the truth.
So although the term "non-binary" may be too prone to joiners, this population -- who wanted to not conform to EITHER traditional masculine OR traditional feminine archetypes -- was oppressed, is often still oppressed, and it is important to protect the class of people "who do not conform to gender archetypes". ("You can wear makeup and a dress, or you can wear jeans and a button-down shirt, but NOT BOTH.") And the reason YOU don't find them in poor areas is that they're getting beaten up and attacked for it. Still. Though less than in the 1970s or earlier.