This may be orthogonal to the original point, but as a third-world transfem who's rather embroiled in the queer scholarship that eventually trickles down into Tumblr and popular queer discourse, there's something very particularly galling about how "non-binary" identity is treated.
Y'all have probably noticed this too. Historians will say that it's ahistorical to impose "modern categories" of gender and sexuality onto the past, so definitively stating that someone was "trans" or "bisexual" is a big no-no. Similarly, you'll encounter arguments about how imposing "Western categories" of "gayness" or "transness" onto other cultures is "cultural imperialism".
Which ... alright, there is a logic there, even if I take issue with it. However, one thing I've noticed? That selfsame scholarships has no issue with using the term, "culturally recognized non-binary identities" to refer to constructions like third-sexes, or even something that is clearly contextually more or less "gay male bottom".
And that's just so fucking weird?
Scholarship like this is also very emphatic about how "the gender binary" is a "Western, colonialist construct" (which is again a disputable claim, but let's roll with it). In fact, the legibility of "non-binary" as an identity is quite rooted in the modern, anglophonic, Western queer context, and its percolation outside those contexts is rather uncommon.
Yet, the very same fields and scholars that would say "calling a third-gendered person 'trans' is imperialism" have absolutely no issue describing that very third-gendered person as non-binary, irrespective of whether or not "non-binary" is a particularly meaningful concept in that culture!
I don't know chat, there's something interesting going on here, for those willing to critically think about the Western constructions of "non-binary" :)
(Also, just wanted to ask ... has any queer person ever been called "AC/DC"?!)