Choices

Translation: Men are men, women are women, and playing metal gymnastics just so one can pretend to be the other should be summarily dismissed by society.

@guest seems to forget that gender and sex are categories we made up through observation and no objective truth. a realist, or someone looking at objective truth would change their model to reflect reality, not try to classify reality based on a model that doesn’t fit. We once looked at the sky and decided there were planets and stars. Then we realized moons aren’t planets- they are different. Black holes and quasars aren’t stars, asteroids and comets aren’t planets either. Their characteristics and behaviors required we change our model. Recently we decided (controversially) that Pluto was t a planet either. We search for truth in science. So we didn’t just decide that despite any reason otherwise we’d call everything a planet or a star because it was in space. Children are born all the time that specialists can’t say or male or female. But they exist. Bias truth clings to tradition, objective truth changes with additional information. I think you’re confused.

Guest...
What the fuck.
Okay so we have a diverse system for naming what is and isnt a planet. Just like planets, we have a somewhat diverse system for when babies come out. Allow me to teach you. Penis: Male. Vagina: Female. Any conjoinment of the two? Intersex. There are also more than two sexes, but guess what? THOSE ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL. They come with a slew of their own issues and affect the person on a behavioral level. These sexes also have a chance of passing on their hereditary issues if they happen to mate.
This idea that there are multiple genders and sexes because "well the universe is so fucking diverse how come human sex and gender cant be like that?" Show me at least two sexually dimorphic species that have a third sex that can also breed. You cant and you never will, becauce if you could then that species isnt sexually dimorphic. And an example of said sexually dimorphic species? Humans.

Show me the scientific criteria that defines anything with a penis as as man, and anything without a woman. It doesn’t exist. In terms of sex- breeding humans are paired by diametrically opposes reproductive organs. What we call those humans is irrelevant. That’s a fact. I lumped sex in with gender because regardless of the logic it is still a concept we made up to describe a reality, and as you say- the two sex model holds up to the scrutiny of reality. Gender is also a made up system- and this is what I was primarily referring to as it is more pertinent to the original post and comment by guest. Gender is completely made up, and has no hard defining characteristics. Gender and sex are not intrinsically linked, and intersex people can and most often do choose a gender for themselves. For a gender model to reflect reality it would have to reflect the genders that exist. That which doesn’t fit the model- “distortions” of this objective truth guest speaks of- show the flaws in the model.

Intersex people are not chinks in the system that breaks what we know as sex. They are mutations that are fixed. In the end intersex chooses male or female. Also, defining anything with JUST a penis as a male would be scientifically dishonest, as a lot of other things go into what it means to be a man, but thats the easiest way to identify a baby. Otherwise you could get your vagina turned inside out and grow it, and end up with a dick(i heard thats whats done to FTM) and vice versa. And while I can see what you mean -gender being a social construct- it still has its protections. One being its the societal expectations of what it means to be a man or a woman, mentally, and all else that comes with one of the two functioning sexes. Other "genders" dont have that. There are no journals on whether trigenders commit certain crimes more, or if demimales are more likely to enjoy pink, blue, or a bit of purple. These genders have no reason to exist because there is no scientific grounding in

how they walk, talk, how they are wired, and what tendencies these "genders" have. Because there are none. They dont make sense and have no rhyme or reason. Its just fantasy.

I don’t think you got my meaning. I’m not now nor ever suggesting intersex people disprove a two sex system. If we define sex as reproductive pairs- ones theoretical role in reproduction is can/can’t:egg/sperm. I’m saying that the social construct of gender doesn’t line up with the reality that there are as you say: “mutations” born which may have no functional reproductive role, or an ambiguous one. Yet we maintain binary gender. That was the point of my space example. Planet-star-other stuff (aka “mutation”) doesn’t work for a classification. You point out gender roles as defining ones gender- but gender roles change with time, few people completely fit the idea of a gender in a given time period, and the “walks like a man, talks like a man, must be a man” logic fails when confronted with a person who’s gender traits most closely mimic the idea of an other gender. As you mention, and again referencing my star example- we don’t really have statistics on crimes or other activity...

Relating to non binary genders. When we analyize large data sets, the more “stakes” we can place to fine tune the categories of data, the more precise and accurate we can create a model. Informally there are already (often prejorative) subclasses to binary gender in popular use- “metrosexual” “Tom boy” “butch” and so on. These exist because certain relevant facts can be quickly ascertained from the classification, and a simple “man/woman” classification does not impart the key information in how this particular person defies gender role conventions. Gender is a system of classification, like any other your model must reflect reality, any data, assumptions, correlations etc. that you draw from a flawed model are likely as well to be flawed or inadequate. A binary classification by sex tells us the biological facts of an entity in terms of reproduction, but social roles are very dynamic as are individuals of a given sex, correlating sex to gender in a 1/1 binary system is inaccurate.

Okay, so what? There are tons of ways to express manhood. Some are smart some are strong. That doesnt make them a whole new gender to explore, that just goes to show the complexiety of man. Just because some men dress up in dresses doesnt make them women, whether they assert that or not. Women can do anything a man is capable of doing, but does that make her a dude? No. She still is a woman no matter how much she says shes a guy. Again, there are only two genders but a ton of ways of saying "Im a man". You dont have to be overly strong, or have high sex appeal. Same for women, you dont have to have overtly feminine qualities.

You say what doesn’t make a “man” a woman and vice versa- but not what makes a man a man. “A man has many ways to say I’m a man” but how does he- or anyone else know he is a man to begin with? What makes him a man? Our operating line of reason (excluding “mutations”) is that a penis makes his sex male- but what makes his gender that of a man? If it is again- penis- why specify a gender at all and just sex? I’ll answer my own question. By its nature gender is not intrinsic. It is a classification- a description of roles in society. We have binary sexes and so we have binary genders because traditionally ones role in society was dependent upon ones reproductive function. We have people who don’t nearly fit either a binary sex or a binary gender concept- as we increase inclusiveness and equality in rights and more walls are destroyed between what each gender is “allowed” in society, we end up with blurring of gender roles. If you can’t tell what “being a man” is- or it is identical to....

.... being a woman, what is the point of even specifying gender? People like to make it an issue of politics or inclusion, but there are practical reasons why we don’t just call everything a car or a horse, meat and not meat, stars or planets, hot or cold. We refine systems to precision where a distinction exists that is relevant.

Thats...what i was trying to say...
Literally every word you just said in the second half that argument was what i was trying to say...

So... you support the idea of more than 2 genders?

No...
Hmm.
I mustve misread your response
Nevermind.