NASA teaches exactly what the hell it has to do with it all

Sexuality is what you find attractive in a sexual manner whereas gender is what you find appealing in everyday items and your expression of yourself. I find women sexually attractive but my books as a part of my self expression ya see?

Sexuality is already used for things like gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. It is called homosexuality for a reason after all. Gender identity is ultimately a social construct but biological sex never will be. You can be a feminine male or even transgender but you will never be biologically female. The fact that “feminine male” exists as a term shows that we have created social differences between the sexes

Well said by most. Now.... “Gender” and “sex” are tricky concepts- but not as tricky as most people make them. Gender and Gender identity seem perhaps confusing- but people don’t usually get sex and sexuality confused- you don’t see often a lesbian write “lesbian” on a form that asks “sex-“ or a binary gender identity supporter go mental where someone says: “my sexuality is Gay...” and then responding: “Gay isn’t a sexuality! You’re a man of a woman!” So while some people might disagree on what is or isn’t a “valid” sexuality- maybe they don’t believe in “bi-sexual..” or think “Pan sexual” or “asexual” don’t exist... but we all seem to more or less be able to keep sex (biological) and sexuality (attraction) from getting mixed up.

Which I guess just shows how complex and confusing the idea of gender is no? When equated to biological sex- it’s just a synonym. When used to refer to a social identity- usually based in a “gender role” as those things considered to be associated with a certain sex- it gets more confusing.

Of course we know that we can’t assign or assume broad traits about a large group like a “race” etc and have those apply universally. And of course- generalizations serve an important function in our evolution and are used in decision making daily about everything from fashion to food- not just people. But taking observations about a generalization of a group and then creating a classification system members of that group are expected to adhere to- as opposed to altering the assumptions on a group or individual to match reality- defeats the useful purpose of generalization as a tool for understating our environment.

Ideas like “toxic masculinity” or “boys can cry” “men shouldn’t have to pay for everything” and other more recent adjustments to what is considered acceptable behavior for a man or woman- these show the fluidity of gender. And in an age where men didn’t cry or complain- didn’t speak much, were strong etc.... what was a man that did otherwise? A “wimp” a “weak man”? Think of all the labels and classifications for men and women from “butch” to “metro sexual” “nerd” “geek” “sensitive” “bitch” “ass hole” “overbearing” “total bro” “meat head” “jock” etc etc.

If gender identity is what we apply to self- and gender roles are what society applies to us- then gender is a collection of these things. And if gender roles are a system of classification to define our expectations of a person- having only two definitions to cover the vast “archetypes” we could say many men or women commonly fall into- is not an effective system at all.