*CUMMINGS*You're probably right. My expertise in Gender and Sexuality studies is fairly minimal, if I'm being honest, but the wide majority of what I've been involved in has been based off binarism as a critiquing method. Are you advocating for reductionism instead of using binarism?
You do not know me. You do not know how I live my life. I'm an ally, albeit not the most active one I know, and I do treat women as equals. Criticize me all you like, but at least be accurate in doing so.
From an epistemological point of view, binaries were a philosophical tool employed quite frequently during the structuralist period, think people like Jacques Derrida.
The whole framework was useful and still is to sketch out ideas, but as a governing mechanism for serious thought it fails pretty deplorably.
It fell out of favor as philosophy "got smarter" and adapted to post-structuralism. Post-structuralism is no longer as big as it once was.
Basically, Cummings, here's the way to look at binaries in regards to gender. We have a problem right -- equality. We have two primary gender binaries. Now to do a good job we have to epistemologically investigate these two binaries and assume strong oppositionality. We must study those entities in depth to realize their identities, manifestations, and mechanics. This is fine for surface work, but when it "hits the ground" it cannot do much in the way of intervention because of the way it operates. It can't fix the problem because it's understanding relies on opposition, which it is ironically trying to remedy. After that we move into deconstructionism.
That's long winded and I hope you got something out of it. aka I hope I conveyed something useful.
I'm advocating for both reductionism of the issues at hand (paring down and getting rid of the fluff/crap in the way, and deducing what is left and how it can be used to advance change. That's essentially deconstruction, which is a tool.
Gender binarism is still used because it's easy and follows very recognizable lines in our every day society. But when issues are pushed further it's not as useful. Personally? My views? We are all big gelatinous sacks of carbon held up my skeletal structures endowed with a whirring electrical blob controlling our abilities to percieve and intervene in the world. Most important is our continued survival and the development of societal systems most conducive to both survival and understanding of the world we inhabit. Thinking that we're really different because of anatomy and our troubled social history and whining about it in general isn't useful at all.