One complaint of the non-binary and transsexual movement is its unwillingness to define itself or its parameters. Tactically this is smart; strategically, it creates havoc.
In the “concrete universal,” a very particular example becomes the definition for the broader category, which means it serves as a particular instance for an abstract idea.
In not defining a “specific point,” confusion is the point. (Without concrete, we are only left with shifting abstractions, easily manipulated and unanticipated.)
Strategically, vagueness can evade attacks, slipping around limiting parameters as a type of guerilla warfare without standardization. Yet, normative social relations predicated upon the utility and identity of defined (concrete) characteristics are thrown into chaos, and the more literal-minded become anxious, leading them to antagonism to recapture stability.
Without specificity, how to define or defend an idea also seems unknowable. Unfortunately, we are witnessing any non-majority behavior become equivalent by affiliation with the most extreme aspects; that is, people have begun defining the entire LGBTQIA spectrum by its most confusing aspects and reacting against the whole.
