I would argue you are still thinking about men and women too restrictively if you think that you can know what pronouns to use based on someone being a specific binary gender. Like I get what you are going for here, but lets build what I consider the absolute minimum basis of theory to understand why I chose to make that post the way I did, and why I think you are still using a very incomplete model (I will explain exactly what I mean by model soon, just keep that term in your mind for now).
Before I start, I will say it's possible you know all this but any time I post I reach an audience of thousands, so I have to consider that other people might not understand. This is as much for the benefit of others as it is for you. I also apologize for this getting super long, don't feel obligated to respond, I am simply framing this as directed to you for simplicity sake.
This is an educational post trying to explain in a very simple way that anyone familiar with even the basics of gender theory will be able to start breaking away from rigid category thinking. It's like how high school physics teaches biology almost completely wrong when you really look at it, but it gives a basis with which to form a deeper and more accurate understanding on further education while providing good enough utility in the mean time.
For example, we are told that DNA is how animals inherit traits from our parents. A statement with a grain of truth to it, but so massively oversimplified and incomplete it is hard to call it anything but an outright falsehood once you know more about biological inheritance. But the DNA centric model (again, remember that word model) of inheritance is useful. It's good enough for most people, and provides a solid basis for a working understanding about inheritance. While, again, being practically a lie we tell children so they wont be confused.
The human thought pattern of creating approximations of reality is called modeling. And the first, most important thing, you need to know about modeling is that human thought is absurdly limited in absolute terms and uses all sorts of cognitive shortcuts in order to think about more complex ideas. We have to create models to think about anything, really, and the second vital thing you need to know is that no model is ever accurate. Nothing you will ever know or be capable of thinking will be a true reflection of reality.
What this means is that models are predictive tools. You pull out a model for a specific task, like you would choose a hammer for a driving a nail, or a screwdriver for a screw. Over reliance on any one model or misapplying a model will lead to excessive error of thought, which when applied to people is what we call "prejudice".
So with that very brief and incomplete discussion of modeling, the reason I chose to use the "boxes" model of binary gender in my post is because that is the level most people operate at. As the late great Terry Pratchett coined a phrase, we are lying to children here, because it is immensely difficult to learn at more than one step at a time, and this post is not about binary people. This is baby's first step into understanding box thinking is a bad model with a focus on the immediately most negatively impacted group of the binary box gender model and the failure of thought that is attempting to extend the model to include three boxes. It is meant to be a one step practical correction to mitigate immediate harm, not be a comprehensive rework of gender modeling.
I acknowledge that what you are saying is a step or two forward from what I presented on binary gender theory, but, well.
I say all of this in an attempt to help you understand what I am going to say next, because without context it is going to sound harsh. I don't want you to get the impression that I think poorly of you, but you did commit something of a social faux pas here.
Consider a post where someone says "People think about women wrong, and that is causing real harm. Here is how you can mitigate that harm." And someone responds with "Yes! And men too!" This is the kind of thing that would make every feminist within a mile roll their eyes into the back of their head because when we are talking about immediate practical harm reduction for women it is not appropriate to derail it to be about gender theory of men.
Similarly, while you are correct that the box gender model is poor, and improving your thinking about gender can be a long term aid, when we are talking about immediate practical harm reduction for nonbinary people, it is inappropriate to redirect the post to be about binary gender theory.
Now, if touching on binary gender theory helps further the conversation about harm mitigation for nonbinary people, that could be appropriate. But you need to very carefully consider how you are going to do that.
"I really believe that we, as a society, will never be able to truly accept non-binary people until we abolish the idea that All Men Are Like This and All Women Are Like That."
I think this is a great start to the idea I think you wanted to communicate, an idea I think is worth talking about. Because I think you are right. But I also think that you are going to need to do a lot more work to ensure you are continuing to center practical harm reduction for nonbinary marginalization. General statements about evolving models of thought is really not what we are talking about here, however worthy a subject it might be in a vacuum. I would in fact encourage you to write your own post, I'll even reblog it if you tag me because I think it is something worth talking about. But that is not what we are talking about here.
Now I think there is a good chance you yourself are nonbinary given your stated pronouns (any), and obviously your comment would not have bothered yourself and relates to your own experience. In essence, you know what you meant. But there are also a lot of nonbinary people who are going to see your comment and what they will see is not what you meant, but someone once again derailing a post about nonbinary people to talk about binary people, something I know is an endless source of frustration and distress for many nonbinary people. It is extremely easy to inadvertently contribute to this kind of frustration and distress, even when you are part of the marginalized group in question. Sometimes that can even make it harder, in a way, because it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that because you are of a group that everyone in that group will think like you.
Again, I don't think you did anything actually bad, just a relatively minor social faux pas. But one worth understanding in detail, because we can end up with a death by a thousand paper cuts situation when minor things like this occur so often that they weigh on marginalized people.
(If anyone would like, I can give what I consider my current most comprehensive gender model in a different post, though it is too much to discuss here. It would require at least two full pages of text (probably more like 4 or 5) and at least two custom made diagrams, which is why I didn't put that here.)
