Posts by Laura Harris8

Elizabeth Price2 said:Look, in the context you're laying out, what you're saying just doesn't track at all—it makes zero sense! But honestly, that’s exactly where the kicker is: why is incest strictly off-limits while homosexuality is being pushed so hard now (even though, let's be real, that used to be illegal too)? To me, it feels like someone—heaven knows whose agenda or motives are driving this—just decided to draw a line in the sand at a totally nonsensical spot. They basically just said, "Okay, homosexuality is fine, but other sexual deviations? Hard pass." (And hey, I've got more to say about this later in the post!)

Look, I’ve already laid this out for you—my whole thing isn't even about reproduction or being "pro" or "anti" homosexuality. It’s about being consistent! You can't play the big-shot liberal role, preaching all this tolerance and being pro-homosexuality, while simultaneously drawing the line at incest. That just doesn't add up—it’s pure hypocrisy, plain and simple. Or maybe we’re all just waiting for the wind to shift? Like, maybe one day the mainstream media and the folks in Washington will decide that incest is actually "progressive" and start pushing it as something positive? And then everyone will just flip their stance because suddenly it’s "in" and "trendy"? And if you don't fall in line with that, you're labeled as primitive or intolerant? It’s wild, honestly.
Exactly! Honestly, I feel like a massive chunk of the people siding with the "AGAINST" crowd are only doing it because it's trendy—like, there's zero actual logic behind it. They just follow the herd. Someone basically whispered in their ear that being against it makes them look progressive and civilized, you know? And then they've been fed this whole stereotype that anyone on the "FOR" side is just some uneducated, primitive thug or a total wreck—basically a caricature of a low-life—and boom, that’s how they distance themselves from actually thinking things through. It's wild!

So, why am I personally against homosexuality? Honestly—it’s because I view it as a disorder, just another type of sexual deviation. To me, it sits right up there with things like incest or polygamy.
So, okay... transgender people (I'm not even sure if that's the right way to put it, my bad!). I honestly just cannot wrap my head around how anyone can look at someone else and say, "Yeah, it’s totally fine and completely normal that you don't feel comfortable in your assigned gender and want to be something else." Like, seriously? They go through all of it—hormone treatments, surgeries, and basically everything else imaginable. I am trying *so* hard here to figure out how someone looking in from the outside can find this acceptable—and where exactly should our tolerance as a society end? Where do we need to draw the line and say, "Okay, this is fine, but this is where we stop"? Why? And what does "tolerance" even actually mean anyway? 😁
Just look at how things play out in the Netherlands, for example. And hey, look, I’m not calling it hypocrisy—it’s actually just being consistent, and honestly, props to them for that. But here's the kicker for all you folks who are totally fine with homosexuality and don't see anything wrong with it: would you be down to follow the Netherlands' lead to the absolute extreme? Like, are you all for gradually lowering the legal age of consent? Or maybe even legalizing public sex? I mean, heck, maybe they even have incest legalized too (I did a quick Google search and—lo and behold—it looks like they might!):

From what I've been seeing in this debate so far, it feels like a lot of people on the "AGAINST" side have this massive mental block. They won't even try to look at the bigger picture or consider different angles; they just flat-out refuse to draw any comparison between homosexuality and other deviations... man, I honestly have no clue why it's like that. 🤷

Look, maybe there’s a bit of hypocrisy coming from your side of the fence here, but I’m not going to play that game. Honestly? I get the impression your thinking is incredibly shallow. You keep circling back to how people call you names or label you a primitive, but all I see is you doing the exact same thing—labeling anyone who disagrees with you, attacking their ability to reason, and recycling that tired old argument about "consistency." It’s exhausting. All you’ve done is parrot the standard script your crowd loves to spout: that anyone on the "other side" is brainwashed, just following some trendy "modern" fad, or simply incapable of independent thought. It’s a predictable loop. And let’s get real for a second—you don't actually know me. You have no clue who I am or what I stand for. So, really, where do you get off deciding that I don't think for myself? Since when did you become the authority on my own brain?

Look, here’s some friendly advice: maybe try using that brain of yours just a little bit more before you start slapping labels on everyone you talk to. A little more civility and actually backing up your arguments would go a long way. Seriously, can we try having a real conversation for once?

You probably think you're making some grand point by coming out here and claiming that homosexuality or polygamy are "disorders" (whatever that's even supposed to mean to you). But let’s be real for a second—unless you happen to be holding a medical degree or have any actual authority to diagnose anyone, you're just talking. Usually, when people lack the credentials, they just fall back on "common sense," right? I know exactly how these debates go. They assume their specific upbringing or whatever they personally find incomprehensible is somehow synonymous with universal common sense. Honestly, you really ought to show some respect for the professionals who actually have the qualifications to speak on these things.

So, let me get this straight—can you actually explain, in plain English, how polygamy or polyamory is considered some kind of psychological disorder? Are you seriously trying to claim that falling for more than one person at the same time is a mental illness?! Or is it just that you find the idea of someone wanting to be married to multiple people completely incomprehensible and unacceptable?
If that’s really how you see it, then yeah, I’m totally with you—it’s pretty mind-boggling. But look, I’m not going to go throwing around heavy labels like "disorder" just to make a point. At the end of the day, this stuff is baked into the culture of certain societies. You probably already know that there have been plenty of cultures throughout history that managed to thrive even while practicing polygamy. If you aren't familiar with that, I can definitely send over some links so you can see for yourself.

And finally, let me address the core issue here. No—regardless of what you think or whatever logic you’ve managed to cook up in your head, there is absolutely no reason why someone who supports the LGBTQ+ community should automatically be expected to back every single possible type of community out there. Good grief. I’ve already written about how hollow that whole "consistency" argument really is.
Look, I’ll be honest—I don't even have to be a proponent of polygamy to see where this is going. You don't need to be "pro" to look at the logic here. For starters, let's get one thing straight: polygamy isn't a sexual orientation. It shouldn't even be categorized that way. Then there's the practical side of things; honestly, does that sound manageable? Given the legal framework we're working with in the States, trying to regulate something that chaotic would be a total nightmare from a legal standpoint. And finally, am I right in thinking this would trigger massive social shifts? I’m convinced that legalizing polygamy would cause far more seismic changes to our social fabric than the regulation of same-sex marriage ever did. It’s just a different level of complexity entirely, isn't it?
If we actually legalized same-sex marriage, I honestly don't see how it would change anything for the rest of society. It’s not like heterosexual people are suddenly going to start rushing out to sign up for same-sex marriages just because they can, right? That doesn't make any sense. For those who are already part of the LGBTQ+ community, it would simply give them a stronger incentive to feel integrated into the fabric of our society, nothing more. At the end of the day, it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on traditional heterosexual marriages.
On the other hand, if polygamy were actually legalized, you have to consider that a massive number of straight people might suddenly opt into polygamous communities—not just the folks who’ve been asking for it from day one. We're talking about a total reorganization and restructuring of our entire social fabric here, which honestly sounds pretty radical to me. Still, at the end of the day, I realize we're talking about individual free will. I wouldn't go around trying to stop anyone from doing what they want, but it would probably lead to some pretty wild shifts in how everything works. Honestly, I wouldn't even cast a vote either way on a change like that. I’m not really pro-polygamy, but I’m not anti-polygamy either. In principle, I’m perfectly happy with our current social structure, but then again, I don't see why anyone should be forbidden from doing what they want.
At the same time, I completely get those folks who argue that marriage should strictly be reserved for heterosexual unions because of the fundamental differences in relationship dynamics. (Just so you know, I'm against this referendum for several other strong reasons that I won't get into right now). That approach avoids any kind of radicalization, allowing both the more conservative and the more liberal perspectives to coexist peacefully.

I think I’ve rambled enough. I was just trying to signal to you that maybe you should take a moment to reflect on your own stances and not take everything for granted. On top of that, I wanted to clarify how someone could reasonably support one side while rejecting the other, given that we are essentially talking about two entirely different issues here.

Honestly, the whole debate over whether incest should be allowed isn't even the point; people just throw it out there as a way to call the "against" side inconsistent. The guy who started this thread already made it clear why he’s asking.

You often hear the "against" crowd say things like, "They love each other, they're happy, and they aren't hurting anyone." Then, they use that exact logic to drag incest or polygamy into the conversation. It’s a classic move: "Well, if those two love each other and aren't hurting anyone, why wouldn't they allow *this*?" It sounds perfectly logical on the surface, doesn't it?

But let's be real—that’s a pretty hollow argument. Why? Because you could flip the script and use the same logic against the "pro" side. You see people arguing that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples rather than same-sex couples specifically because the former can contribute to continuing the species. But hey, polygamous or even incestuous unions could technically be productive in that regard too, right? So, shouldn't the same question be applied to them?

Look, everyone has their own personal boundaries and moral limits. That's just how humans work. But if we are sitting here debating the merits of homosexuality, why on earth should someone feel forced to defend their stance on polygamy just to prove they're being "consistent"? What is there to prove?

In my view, bringing up these comparisons just deconstructs the actual discussion and shifts the focus toward things that don't even matter. You aren't going to reach any meaningful conclusion by going down that rabbit hole.

Elizabeth Price2 said:

I can't believe I'm actually doing this—just dropping a line here! Honestly, life’s been a total whirlwind lately, kind of a beautiful mess, you know? Anyway, just wanted to pop in, say hi to everyone, and see what's shaking in the world. It feels like there's always something happening, whether it's some wild news story or just the usual daily grind, but hey—that's what keeps things interesting, right? Sending good vibes to everyone out there! kaže:
Wait, I think I've got a huge issue here! Seriously—what’s the deal with homosexual relationships and...So, I was just thinking about those weirdly complex situations—you know, like when people talk about incestuous relationships that can't actually lead to kids? It’s one of those super heavy, controversial topics that honestly makes your head spin a little! Even though it's such a taboo subject, there's always that weird philosophical or biological debate floating around about the actual consequences versus the social stigma. It's definitely one of those things that gets people talking in circles, haha!...and that's right alongside incest. 🤣

Yeah, so here we go—drawing those parallels again. It basically boils down to asking why one thing is okay while the other isn't. Look, if you actually have a take on this, try to walk me through it—like, give me a real, logical explanation for why you're against those kinds of incestuous relationships (unless, of course, you aren't, in which case, just totally ignore my question!).

Nah, why would I even bother comparing them? I only brought up that specific incest case on purpose—just so you guys wouldn't hit me with that whole "defective kids" argument and stuff like that!

🤷

Look, I hear what you're saying, and your point is totally fair—but just to clear the air, I never actually claimed that the sole reason for marriage has to be about passing on genes! That’s just one of those religious "spikes" people throw around, and honestly, I don't have anything to do with that line of reasoning at all.

Fine, whatever. The point is that anyone can twist a single imprecise statement to suit their own agenda.

My whole goal here is just to highlight the hypocrisy of those pushing for gay marriage; though, if we're being fair, the exact same inconsistency could be thrown back at the other side by asking the very question you just admitted was valid.

At the end of the day, once a debate veers down that path, you're basically hitting a dead end. It leads nowhere. It's really just a way to troll the discussion and shift the focus onto things that don't actually matter.

Elizabeth Price2 said:Look, plenty of folks—myself included—feel a natural gut reaction against same-sex stuff, so nobody needs to try and force anything on anyone in that department.
My main goal when I bring up that comparison is really just to point out how inconsistent some people are being! To me, if you're totally fine with homosexual relationships, then there’s honestly no reason why you wouldn't also be okay with incestuous ones (since they don't result in kids) or even polygamy. You guys set the bar for tolerance so high yourselves! There’s really no logical reason to draw a line in the sand and say, "Okay, this group fits in my circle of tolerance, but that group doesn't."
So why the discrimination? 😁 People just love each other! Why does it matter what they’re doing behind their own four walls? Now you want to go peeking into their bedrooms and deciding who they can or can't be with? I mean... in what actual way are they threatening you or getting in your way? (Seriously, that's the best argument I've ever heard from the pro-gay side, and I truly don't have a sensible comeback for it!) Etc.

So, you’re telling me I’m the one in the wrong here? Really? It’s funny how that works. You always hear the same old tired argument from the other side, claiming marriage should be strictly reserved for a man and a woman simply because they’re the ones who can technically carry on the species. But honestly, if we’re playing by those rules, where does it stop? I mean, incestuous couples could technically contribute to the continuation of the species too, and wouldn't polygamous communities be incredibly productive in that regard? So, why is there such a massive double standard? Why does that logic only seem to apply when it's convenient? ti So, what's your take on incest or polygamy? Are you really against them? Because if you look at it from my perspective—if a man and a woman are the only ones capable of continuing the species—then I don't see why someone wouldn't also be on board with incestuous relationships or polygamy. It just follows the logic, doesn't it? 🤷

That’s just such a massive fail of an argument. Honestly, it’s nothing more than trolling designed to derail the entire conversation and kill whatever focus was left. And if we're being real, you can see how easy it is to troll people from either side of the aisle. It's all just noise, isn't it?

@Tyler Cruz32: Honestly, I didn’t find anything controversial or confusing about this sentence:

If anyone actually wants to debate homosexuality as a mental disorder, its removal from diagnostic manuals, the APA, or whatever, feel free to take that conversation elsewhere.

So, looking at the comments from that moderator—some of which I’ve quoted here—regarding that whole messy topic, I don't see any of the "constructive dialogue" everyone keeps talking about. It just looks like people making fun of each other. Because of that, I thought it was perfectly reasonable to ask some actual questions about what rights we even have here and who gets to exercise them. Especially since just last week, a few users were handed warnings and three-day bans just for posting links or joking around about those specific disorders.

But look, the stance on this issue is pretty clear now. Point taken. As far as I'm concerned, we can close the thread. I guess we'll know when we've finally reached a consensus on how to balance "expressing an opinion" with "respecting others." Cheers. 😉

Brenda Cook4 said:because I'm writing on this thread as a forum member

What kind of "forum member" are you being here? What are we even talking about? Are you somehow the moderator for Religion? Did you step in as a moderator on the homosexuality discussion thread—from a social or religious standpoint—by handing out warnings or shutting people down?

What is actually going on here? What kind of narrative are you trying to spin?

Didn't the other moderators (Tyler Cruz32, Nicole James) explicitly state on that thread that homosexuality shouldn't be labeled a disorder?

Take a look at this post from moderator Tyler Cruz32:

Despite Tyler Cruz32's warning, Brenda Cook4 keeps pushing this idea of it being an illness. She does it through her own posts and by, as she puts it, "encouraging debate," all while dropping news articles that label homosexuality as a disease along with a whole bunch of other insinuations:

Brenda Cook4 said:The whole point here is exactly that—because the moment you start listing things I supposedly shouldn't say (and linking back to my posts to prove it), calling them "outbursts" or "homophobia," we stop talking about the actual topic. If your first instinct when I link a source or comment on a Philosophy PDF chat is to call me out just because I used an excerpt from a news outlet like the LA Times, then we aren't discussing facts anymore. We're discussing your attempt to ban any opinion that doesn't fit your specific vision of what a forum member should be.

Look, there’s a massive difference between moderation—which is one thing if you have a legitimate grievance—and how I express myself as a regular user here. So, let's get back to the real issue: What is actually going on with the moderation? Your little complaint isn't about the topic at hand; it's targeting me personally for my supposed "behavior."

1. I never once used the word "outbursts," and I certainly haven't tried to censor anyone's freedom of speech. I am asking you to please stop accusing me of things I did not do and quit putting words in my mouth.

2. Actually, I have a question of my own: If a regular user isn't allowed to call homosexuality a sickness or a disorder, does that mean a moderator isn't allowed to either?

3. And just to be clear, that question isn't directed at you—it's for the site administration. So, honestly, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation with you.

Brenda Cook4 said:Yeah, seriously, as if I wouldn't just crack a joke once in a while—God forbid maybe Beljki or Ego took offense, oh boy.🙄

Look, I’ve said my piece, and the admins will say theirs (and honestly, anyone else who wants to chime in too). If the administration actually starts entertaining these kinds of demands—demands that would basically strip away free speech by labeling anything they dislike as an "outburst" or a "phobia," even when none of those labels are true and are just different from your personal opinion—then I have absolutely no interest in serving as the Religion moderator for one more second. I'll gladly step down.

This isn't about free speech at all. This is just yet another example of how you talk to people—mostly through manipulation. You're shifting the focus of the debate onto something else entirely and accusing me of trying to censor you, playing the victim with those cheap, populist clichés. And the only actual response to the controversial posts was "I was just joking." Honestly, give me a break.

But, like I said, nobody's freedom of speech is being questioned here. You are perfectly free to write whatever you want, and I am perfectly free to question your specific rhetoric, especially from my position as a moderator.
I pointed out examples regarding the "ailments" you keep bringing up, the snide and mocking way you comment on specific topics, and how you back posts of that exact nature. Since the other moderators have already established that this kind of behavior isn't allowed for regular users, I decided to bring it up here. Like you said, let the people in charge look into whether there's any basis for a reaction. At the end of the day, I just want to know what is and isn't permitted on this forum. I wasn't questioning whether your moderator privileges should be revoked; that's for the people who actually make those decisions to handle.

Brenda Cook4 said:I just see that you’re being biased right from the title, labeling my views as "outbursts" (to the point where you're stalking my posts in the Philosophy chat, hey, Philosophy chat!) and slapping the "homophobe" label on me, yet your "evidence" consists of links that don't actually contain anything remotely related to what you're claiming.

Look, I didn't start this thread, nor did I come up with its title. I originally posted this under "Appeals against a card" because I honestly wasn't sure where else it belonged. Someone else turned it into a new topic and picked the title themselves.

And for the record, I am not "stalking" your posts. This forum has a search function—which is exactly what I used so I could provide links to the specific problematic posts here—and while looking through recent examples, I happened to run into that exact post from Philosophy. Since when did using a search bar become forbidden? Since when is that considered "stalking"?

When you made that snarky, mocking comment about homosexuality, you responded to it with approval and even more sarcasm. That isn't the kind of behavior a moderator should be endorsing, let alone setting an example of for everyone else.

If, on the other hand, the expectation is that no one is allowed to say anything at all because any dissenting opinion is considered 'harassment' of someone's political agenda or whatever course they're taking, then I certainly won't stay silent, as I find that to be a blatant violation of the right to express an opinion and freedom of speech.

Where on earth am I demanding that nobody can say anything? I'll ask again: where did I ever say that NOBODY isn't allowed to say ANYTHING?

I’m calling on the authorities reading this debate not to fall for the manipulation this moderator is attempting. I haven't said anything of the sort. In fact, I was being perfectly clear:

1. I wasn't talking about politics or anyone's political agenda.
2. Homosexuality is not a disease.
3. Calling homosexual people "sick" is verbal harassment of those individuals.
4. Forum policy—as other moderators have emphasized and stated—is that it is not permitted to refer to homosexuality as a disease or disorder; therefore, such behavior is expected from moderators too, whether expressed directly or indirectly.
5. The moderator Brenda Cook4 has had several outbursts like this on the topic, and if you look closely at her posts on that subject, it's quite obvious.

I couldn't care less about your personal opinions, nor your "deviations from the rules" or whatever else you're implying by that. My stance is that no one has the right to harass others by labeling their "condition" as a sickness when there is no medical diagnosis for it—and that includes all the indirect insinuations this moderator has been dropping on that thread for a while now. Nor should anyone be mockingly ridiculing gay people while the moderators actually support it. Not to mention the way this moderator talks to other users, accusing them of "outing" themselves:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=2598

Here she goes again, referring to certain "ailments" and claiming there were plenty of them:

http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=2697

Anyway, there’s definitely plenty to unpack when it comes to how this moderator actually "handles" things.

Look, I’m going to say this one more time—for the third time now—because I refuse to sit here and be insulted, nor will I let someone twist my words to suit their own narrative regarding the very foundation of this forum. I didn't come here looking for some kind of "ban," and I certainly wasn't trying to tell you to shut up. I simply stated that I wasn't interested in debating you on that specific point; if I were, I would have reached out to you privately. The forum policy is clear: calling homosexuality a disease is strictly prohibited, given that it isn't one. When someone tries to convince others—or even just implies—that it’s a disorder, they are essentially labeling homosexual people as sick or unstable. To me, that feels like harassment, but honestly, my personal opinion isn't even the point here. The point is the forum policy itself, which many of the moderators have consistently emphasized and enforced.

So, based on your activity surrounding this topic and that string of problematic comments and posts you've made, I’m coming to you here for some clarification. Since I don't have access to the specific thread you keep bringing up, and I'm not privy to the various comments or decisions that were handed down there, I need to understand what's actually going on.

What on earth does some random ruling from the Superior Court have to do with this? Some guy in a flashy car gets hammered, drives drunk, kills someone, and then walks away with just two years? Like, what’s the point of even bringing that up?!

On this forum's version of a "courtroom," users have been told over and over again that calling homosexuals "sick" isn't allowed—whether you're over in Politics, Social Science, Religion, or wherever else. So, wouldn't you think the moderators would actually lead by example here? Or am I wrong to assume that rules apply to everyone and aren't just for the regular folks while the mods get a free pass? 😕

On a different note, I'm looking at your entire track record, which is basically just one long string of insinuations about what's "normal" versus what's "deviant," like this:

...not to mention the follow-up comments and how you back them up, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I'm done. I'm not interested in debating this with you. Maybe if the admins finally decided to weigh in and clarify what's actually permitted and what isn't, we could move on. For instance, is it actually okay to call homosexuals "sick" or not? Because right now, the line is incredibly blurry.

Look, this isn't about my personal definition of what's "correct," nor am I out here playing bodyguard for "freedom of speech." Just because science hasn't pinned down the exact origins of homosexuality doesn't give anyone a free pass to label it a sickness. Your "freedom of speech" ends the moment it starts infringing on someone else's right to exist without being harassed. No one has the right to call others "sick" as a way to bully them, especially when their identity isn't even a medical diagnosis.

It’s pretty obvious from what you've posted here that you've crossed the line multiple times. Even when you try to play it "polite," you're still contributing to this toxic atmosphere, which is why I'm handing this over to another moderator to review your activity.

(Edit: And don't even bother trying to sugarcoat that first part. When someone made that nasty comment about homosexuality—you know, the one about how we've "evolved" just to facilitate certain sexual acts—your response was basically, "Yeah, exactly." Everything you wrote after that is totally irrelevant. It's just one more example of how you use sarcasm to mock homosexuality or back up those kinds of insults.) This is nothing more than spreading verbal intolerance, no matter how much you try to dress it up. Like I said, I'm waiting for the other moderators to weigh in.

Look, I’m not officially filing a grievance against a specific user here, but honestly, where else am I supposed to put this? I already flagged the original thread, but I wanted to bring this specific situation over here because I have no idea what’s going to happen with that report over in the Religion section.

So, here’s the deal: a moderator, Brenda Cook4, is out there promoting a news article and—get this—actually highlighting specific passages from it regarding the social and religious aspects of homosexuality. In this piece, the author goes as far as calling homosexuality a disease and labeling it as deviant, abnormal behavior. They even go so far as to argue that what they deem "deviant," "sick," and "abnormal" shouldn't be allowed to become "normal" or "healthy."

And it isn't just a one-off thing, either. This moderator has been jumping into these discussions for a while now, dropping homophobic comments left and right. In this particular post, they suggest we should revert back to "what was previously established," which is basically a thinly veiled way of insinuating that homosexuality ought to be classified as a mental illness.

On several other threads, this moderator is either making these kinds of comments themselves or actively backing up others who do. Take this one, for instance, where they're being sarcastic and mocking homosexuality by supporting a previous comment:

which says:
"Yeah, sure, because that's how we 'evolved,' right?"

These are just a few examples of what's going on. Isn't it about time someone actually looked into this "moderator's" activity?

They’re more prone to suicidal thoughts because they spend their entire lives being told they're sick when, honestly, they aren't.

You’re just brushing off what medical professionals actually say. This is a private forum, and frankly, it isn't interested in your personal spin on things. Fair enough? ☕

Joshua Anderson said:after I proved that reproductive organs were still referred to that way until quite recently

Look, you haven't actually proven anything. That document you found (the one about cows 😂) is fifty years old and uses "reproductive" exclusively for bovine anatomy; that doesn't prove much of anything in a modern context. If you plug "reproductive organs" into any search engine, you get basically zero results. The only hits you find are either in another language or just links back to this very forum where you're using that specific phrasing. 🤣
I gave you a detailed response to that post, but unfortunately, it looks like it was probably deleted before you even had a chance to see it.

Here’s what I think you’re missing: nobody is denying the fact that at one point in history, "sex" and "gender" became synonyms within certain contexts. We have documents from the 1800s that refer to grammatical categories as masculine, feminine, or neuter. Those words originally meant different things, but they merged into synonyms in specific contexts at one point in time. Nobody is arguing against that—we all know it. However, with the fight for women's rights and the rise of feminism, those two concepts were split apart again to clearly distinguish between what is biological and what is socially constructed. So, why is that usage correct?

You once wrote something along these lines: that gender, as a word, tends toward the shared, whereas sex tends toward identifying differences.
That sentence escaped me at the time, but I remembered it recently and realized that all the wisdom is contained in that simple observation.

It’s precisely because gender is oriented toward the commonality (humanity as a whole), covering those shared characteristics and roles (which both men and women can perform), that it’s more appropriate to use "gendered." Meanwhile, for traits that are naturally conditioned and contain clear biological distinctions, it's more accurate to say "sexual."

That’s really it; that's the entire philosophy behind this way of expressing ourselves. Again, I'll say it for the hundredth time: no one is denying that these words became synonymous. But based on your own explanation, the push to separate them is happening, and it's entirely justified because the words possess distinct original meanings.
Why the separation? Well, that's where our worldviews will never meet, so I don't expect us to agree on anything, and I'm not expecting you to agree with me either. But I engaged in this debate with you specifically because of that linguistic construction. This terminology is linguistically sound and completely valid. There's really nothing left to argue about here.