I changed my vote to no based on consideration of the term. First, it's nice to want to make an umbrella term for all sorts of people, but what has to be understood that such terms often fail to gain ground even in some scientific/sociology circles, so I don't expect the term to become a common vernacular for any one of us. Second, it's not economical to use an acronym in every case, and this is one of them. People like terms that encapsulate the whole of the subject or category involved, androgyne and genderqueer to varying degrees does this, so why reinvent the wheel on this one? And finally, third, acronyms sometimes wind up dehumanizing the subject entirely, which is good for making an objective analysis, but not good for making our presence known outside the scientific community. People will just think, "Huh, what a strange concept" and move along, instead of thinking, "Wow, I never thought of gender being like that before." It's better to grab onto an economical term that has the least amount of disparaging use, and doesn't dehumanize us: Genderqueer and androgyne both seem to cover that. NBGV will probably be useful in scientific/scholarly papers, but not for common usage.
-- Brede