Quite so. The double-standard is hypocritical. The rationalization of it being about canon is just that, a rationalization; it is not rational. It is about what the people writing and editing the articles are capable of processing both culturally and linguistically. The articles conform to these limitations.
It is never stated canonically that, if a Starfleet officer in the TOS era wears the miniskirt uniform, then they are female. In DS9 "Trials and Tribble-ations," when Dax said that "... women wore less," she did not say
less what. The ability to process what she said and
correctly interpret it, in the contexts both of the shows (TOS and DS9) and of the cultures in which they aired (decades apart) as referring to the miniskirt uniform that was in-universe acceptable for female officers, that is what is required to "get it." To those who get it, it is obvious.
But if we follow the letter of the canon rationalization, all those starship crew members wearing miniskirts in the background identified e.g. as unnamed females? Bogus. See, e.g., "A female yeoman" [
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wik...e_(NCC-1701)_operations_personnel#Yeoman_.232] etc.
The sad truth is that some people aren't ready or able to process sexuality on a higher plane than tiddies vs no tiddies, whereas others must. It doesn't mean that it has to end there.
Some people want to reinforce the historical limitations of language, while others want language and discourse to evolve to become more inclusive, to recognize people who historically would have been marginalized.
Bringing a non-binary person to the fore is obviously what the DISCO team was trying to accomplish with Adira. It's obvious to me, because thankfully, I get it, at least well enough to see. As a
Star Trek fan, I think the conversation here is worth having, because clearly fandom, like all humanity, is still a work in progress.
