>

If you already believe that someone can feel like the other binary gender, instead of just being 'a feminine man' or 'a masculine woman', then why can't you imagine that someone can feel like something other than a man or a woman at all?
I feel that so many people that identify as non-binary only do so because they don't conform to their gender stereotypes, not because they have genuine gender dysmorphia.

Actually, the thing about being non-binary is that non-binary can and often do experience gender dysphoria* (which is what it is; not dysmorphia). It seems like an overwhelming aspect of this post is that you base your views off of the belief that being a non-binary trans person automatically equates to being a non-dysphoric trans person and vice versa, but this isn't true.
There are binary trans people who do identify with being non-dysphoric, and there are non-binary trans people who identify with being dysphoric. I am one of the latter.
My gender identity and how I arose did not come out of a desire to be a "man that plays with dolls and likes painting his nails". It came because I ultimately realized that my primary and secondary sex characteristics caused be significant distress, something easy and clear to label as gender dysphoria, but I am absolutely 100% non-binary.

I think that if gender stereotypes weren't so strongly present - if boys didn't feel that they had to dress a certain way, if girls didn't feel they had to like certain things, and so on - then non-binary genders would barely exist.

Once again, gender stereotypes are not what make me dysphoric. I can say it clearly: even if gender stereotypes were abolished, I'd still hate my primary and secondary sex characteristics.

I'm not referring to trans gender people, who I've read often feel like they are trapped in the wrong body, often from a young age.

Non-binary people are transgender. Also, just a quick sidenote that "trapped in the wrong body" is not particularly the most nuanced way to describe the feeling of dysphoria.

I'm referring to people who are gender non-binary, and in particular people who may change their gender on an ongoing basis. Surely, if you were to 'wake up' and feel like a different gender, then it's really not your gender that's changing at all, but merely your mood.

Not all or even most non-binary people are genderfluid, and even to the ones that are genderfluid, it still isn't necessarily as simple as "my mood changed so my gender changed", as far as I'm concerned. However, as a non-fluid non-binary person, I can't speak too much on the experience.

I've had many days where I wanted to go camping and light fires and throw big rocks into the river. I've had many days where I wanted to bake cakes, drink wine and gossip with friends. My gender in both of these occasions was the same - and the fact that me, you, and everyone reading this knows which example above corresponded to which gender is surely the problem here, not actual gender dysmorphia.

This entire last paragraph once again shows that your argument is on a false premise. Like, your entire point is that "people identify as non-binary because of gender stereotypes; not dysphoria!", but I'm a non-binary person who is non-binary and strictly identifies that way due to dysphoria without any regards to any social norms, and get this: I'm far from the only one. >

Your title says “normalization causes stereotypes” where as the body of your argument seems to be “stereotypes cause normalization”. >

I suppose you're right - but it's cyclical, no? The more we normalise non-binary genders, the more we affirm that these stereotypes fit within the box of the gender they're assigned to. >

You’d have to be making the argument that non-binary normalization somehow impacts societal opinions on gender, which I don’t think you’ve done yet. Sure, gender stereotypes can lead to people becoming non-binary, but I just don’t see how you can reasonably argue the inverse. >

Surely all you need to do is prove it impacts a personal opinion on gender and then you can extrapolate. >

But if society is already starkly biased towards binary gender roles, how exactly is changing a personal opinion towards normalization of nonbinary identities making that problem worse?  Any problematic integration would be a matter of accommodating/defending binary views against the incursion of accepting that nonbinary identities are truly nonbinary.  I don't see how the blame then falls on the nonbinary view. >

It shouldn’t get the blame, it just doesn’t help.
Lets put it this way: saying that men can’t cook and women are bad drivers are bad stereotypes. If you say you’re non-binary and so those stereotypes don’t apply to you, you are giving an implicit recognition that they’re accurate. Logic would then dictate that if someone doesn’t fit those stereotypes, they must be non-binary like yourself. Hence gender roles are reinforced. >

That's like saying atheism strengthens theistic cultural dominance.  But a world without belief in gods simply would be atheist.  They might not have a word for it, but if we were comparing their world to ours, "atheist" would be a useful descriptor.  Progressing towards that world would do the opposite of reinforcing theism.
Similarly, progressing towards a nonbinary world would necessarily weaken gender roles.  If a few binary stragglers entrenched themselves in an even more starkly binary view of gender roles, that would not be equivalent to nonbinary views reinforcing binary views.  Rather, it would be binary views reinforcing binary views, just as how cult members reinforce their ever more absurd beliefs.
If someone wants to take my identifying as nonbinary as an excuse to be even more binary, the problem is nonetheless with their views, not mine.  Nothing about my identifying as nonbinary requires women to do kitchen work or men to work on oil rigs.  That's absurd. >

For your example to be accurate you would need to replace atheism with another religion.
Atheism would be rejecting the very concept of gender. Which is exactly what I'm advocating. >

But identities that reject gender are necessarily nonbinary.  Agender is a nonbinary identity.  And all nonbinary identities reject binary gender roles. >

Yes, they reject binary gender roles in favour of trinary gender roles. Or quadrinary, or quinary or senary depending on many gender identities you decide to add to the mix.
You're not rejecting the original two, you are just giving other options. >


and the fact that me, you, and everyone reading this knows which example above corresponded to which gender is surely the problem here,

But surely, we cannot actually break away from that knowledge without deconstructing what 'man' and 'woman' mean in social construction and performance, which requires a recognition of something beyond the gender binary. Because if you are, say, a man who feels unbound by gender stereotypes, and you decide that you will dress in feminine clothes and do feminine things or whatever, that isn't really breaking away from the stereotype (or rather, the performative gender role) because you are still bound to it; your chosen gender presentation is still defined in relation to it. A man might be a transgressive man, but that is ultimately beholden to our understandings of the original idea of what a man is. So while you might be living outside of the stereotype, the stereotype is still there, it cannot be defeated this way. To actually deconstruct the stereotype and reform our understanding of gender identity (and thus gender performance and gender expectations) we have to understand and recognize identities beyond the binary >

Which is >

You're just making assumptions instead of basing your views on reality. If you knew more nonbinary people you would know that a lot of nonbinary people have typically feminine or masculine presentations. Their gender is about how they feel inside not how they like to dress or act. >

If it's not about stereotypes or gender presentation or expectations, then could you please explain what

Their gender is about how they feel inside

^ this means? >

Its about your gender identiy, your sense of self. It's diffuse and sometimes difficult to figure out but definitely there or trans people wouldnt be a thing. >

Does everyone have a gender identity? >

Yeah, it's just that most people dont notice it much because it aligns with your body and lived experience. It only really becomes obvious when your experienced no longer line up with what you brain expects. Cis people (aka non-trans people) will feel pretty shit as well when they get constatly missgendered for example. Just start calling a women "Sir" and see how she likes it. >


Just start calling a women "Sir" and see how she likes it.

This is down to sex, not gender. You'd be suggesting she looks male. 
You can't look at someone and know their internal feelings. We call people sir/madam/man/woman based on their sex, or if they've had surgery and hormones, their presented sex. 
That's all gender really means to most people.. sex. 
I don't "feel" any gender at all. I'm called a woman because I'm female. >


You'd be suggesting she looks male.

And that wouldnt be a bad thing at all if she didnt strongly prefer to be seen as feminine. She wont get upset because you are "factually incorrect" but because you dont treat her acording to her gender identity. That's all gender identity is really, a strong preference for how you want to be seen and treated as. >

People may get upset if they get mis-sexed. If you are female and someone calls you "sir" or "man" then that's inferring that you look male, nothing to do with any internal feelings.