Is gender identity inherent, or is it shaped by our environment?

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Look, I shouldn't have to overexplain things; the quotes should be enough to make sense of it all;

vividorca9 said:You're insulting me by assuming I haven't already thought about that. That's just how a real debate works. 🤷 I don't know why you even jumped into this if you expect everyone to just bend to your specific worldview. 🤷 Make an actual argument for your position and let people disagree with you. Don't mock me just because I'm standing my ground on a view you don't share. 🤷

I’m just laying out the reasons why I believe sex and gender should be treated as separate categories.

Of course, she's talking about gender as a shifting social category, unlike biological sex, which remains a constant, unchanging category. Language serves a crucial function, yet you write in your post;

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

and then...

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

I think your view on the function of language is pretty clearly laid out in this mess.

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

What a joke... Rachel Stewart36 actually managed to find the right words to clear up this absolute mess of misunderstood terms and categories.

Rachel Stewart36 said:Drew Lee7Look, you’re getting way too lost in your own theories—honestly, I don't even think you grasp your own point at this stage. You're trying to draw this line between sex and gender—though, let's be real, they're totally interconnected—but you're basically just denying the whole concept of gender. Instead, you're pushing this idea that it's all about sex identity, and here's how you define it:

So, you're basically saying that when you talk about gender identity, you’re just referring to what most people call gender. Plus, you’re making this whole distinction between sex and gender identity—which is pretty obvious from this point here:

So, you’re basically arguing there are two distinct categories here—sex and gender identity? And if I'm reading this right, your take on "gender identity" is just the standard definition of gender. You're out here using "sex and gender identity" while everyone else sticks to "sex and gender"—is that really such a big deal?

Everything you just said was already covered by Sandra Barrett4. Brandon Wright54 u sljedećem:

We could always throw sexual orientation into the mix to see how those three elements dance together—imagine the chaos. But honestly, looking at how this thread is heading, I think I’ll pass on any moves that feel like self-inflicted torture. Goodnight. 😉

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Then you write:

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

So, in your first post, you admit culture has an influence, but only as a consequence of biology. You claim gender roles are purely biological results—unchangeable by society—meaning culture follows biology, making gender roles as unchangeable as sex itself. Then, in the next post, you claim gender identity is built from both sex and culture, which is exactly why you lost your mind when I made that very same point:

Drew Lee7 said:Look, I haven't lost my mind in some deep theoretical rabbit hole; you’re just having a hard time grasping what I actually wrote.

I've pointed out more than once where my definition of sex roles differs from how gender role theory defines them.

Sure, there's overlap. We can agree on that. But there are also distinct differences, and that's where we hit a wall.

According to gender theory, gender is nothing more than a social construct. Period.

But a sex role isn't just a social construct (though parts of it are); it stems from social expectations *and* biological reality—you know, actual physiological markers.

P.S. Sexual orientation doesn't exist. It's just sexual inclination.

Can't you just come to an agreement with yourself?

Drew Lee7 said:
3. "Motherhood is just one role among many. The real issue starts when society decides it's the only one that matters—the only one that counts."

And who exactly is facing this "problem"? It’s obviously the people who refuse to play the part—people who can't handle the role, so they project their own personal frustrations onto what they claim is some kind of social injustice.

Do you actually believe the stuff you wrote? If not, I have to hand it to you... I admire the persistence.

Unbelievable!

I’m actually speechless at this sheer volume of intellectual stupidity and fundamental misunderstanding.

I honestly hope you’re just a product of some mediocre liberal arts degree program, because those modern college reforms seem designed to turn people into mindless, zombie-like idiots.

You clearly don't grasp the basic rules for defining or even proposing scientific theories within the social sciences—and don't even get me started on the linguistics side of things, since you obviously have zero clue about that either. You lack even the slightest understanding required to debate "open" questions. Honestly, you don't even realize how a theoretical discussion is supposed to function.

Look, gender theory is just one of many theories that address certain topics by introducing specific terms and defining relationships between them. There are other theories out there about the exact same subjects. Completely opposite ones! Or did they skip teaching you that? And they all carry the same level of "authority" from the academic elite. That’s how scientific debate works. To me, gender theory is fundamentally flawed at its core, but that doesn't mean everything it discusses or writes about is wrong. And I pointed out exactly where I think it fails.

It’s especially hilarious watching you twist my words to reach totally wrong conclusions. Like, "Oh, but I said that..." No, sweetie, I didn't say that. It’s really not my problem when someone lacks the basic capacity for comprehension and just keeps hitting their head against the same wall. For us to even have a real debate, you actually have to understand what I’m writing so we can find a point of disagreement. But you don't even see the disagreement; you just parrot back, "Well, gender theory says this and that." 🤦

It’s pathetic, truly pathetic, if you can't see where the issue lies based on your own intellectual limits. All you need to do is read. It's not rocket science.

Listen, there is absolutely no shame in saying: "Sorry, but I don't follow you," or "I'm not sure I understood what you meant." Your problem is thinking that it's impossible for you to misinterpret something. Well, newsflash: it is. We all can. Some people are self-aware enough to admit when they're confused, while others—you know, the narcissists—find admitting ignorance completely unacceptable.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Drew Lee7 said:Unbelievable!

I’m actually speechless at this sheer volume of intellectual stupidity and fundamental misunderstanding.

I honestly hope you’re just a product of some mediocre liberal arts degree program, because those modern college reforms seem designed to turn people into mindless, zombie-like idiots.

You clearly don't grasp the basic rules for defining or even proposing scientific theories within the social sciences—and don't even get me started on the linguistics side of things, since you obviously have zero clue about that either. You lack even the slightest understanding required to debate "open" questions. Honestly, you don't even realize how a theoretical discussion is supposed to function.

Look, gender theory is just one of many theories that address certain topics by introducing specific terms and defining relationships between them. There are other theories out there about the exact same subjects. Completely opposite ones! Or did they skip teaching you that? And they all carry the same level of "authority" from the academic elite. That’s how scientific debate works. To me, gender theory is fundamentally flawed at its core, but that doesn't mean everything it discusses or writes about is wrong. And I pointed out exactly where I think it fails.

It’s especially hilarious watching you twist my words to reach totally wrong conclusions. Like, "Oh, but I said that..." No, sweetie, I didn't say that. It’s really not my problem when someone lacks the basic capacity for comprehension and just keeps hitting their head against the same wall. For us to even have a real debate, you actually have to understand what I’m writing so we can find a point of disagreement. But you don't even see the disagreement; you just parrot back, "Well, gender theory says this and that." 🤦

It’s pathetic, truly pathetic, if you can't see where the issue lies based on your own intellectual limits. All you need to do is read. It's not rocket science.

Listen, there is absolutely no shame in saying: "Sorry, but I don't follow you," or "I'm not sure I understood what you meant." Your problem is thinking that it's impossible for you to misinterpret something. Well, newsflash: it is. We all can. Some people are self-aware enough to admit when they're confused, while others—you know, the narcissists—find admitting ignorance completely unacceptable.

You are something else. 😂 😂 This is just pure comedy. I don't think you realize it, but you're the only one here who seems clueless about what you're actually typing🙂. Aside from losing your cool and trying to insult me and several others, you've churned out a mountain of nonsense. You have zero actual arguments—just the kind of ugly insults a child throws out when they feel threatened, because no rational adult would react this way unless their ego was being bruised. 🙂 I'm not going to lower myself to your level because your reaction makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just drowning in your own muddled logic. You try to act like you're taking a "critical approach" to gender theories—though I doubt your presentation even deserves that label—but since you clearly have no clue, why trash something you haven't even bothered to study? We all risk misinterpreting things, which is exactly why we present arguments here. You, however, have nothing but a few nasty insults instead of actual substance.🙂 Look, just pick up the book and quit being so damn bitter at a world that clearly doesn't care—you’re the only one convinced you've got it all figured out anyway.🙂

No, I seriously cannot believe how stubborn you are, Drew Lee7. 🤣 🤣 😍 🤣

If language is this fixed, monolithic structure that isn't just some dough anyone can knead however they want, then where on earth do you get the right to just invent your own terms? Especially when Judith Butler—a literal authority in the field—wouldn't even agree with you. Where does that leave you, huh? 🙂 🤣

Brandon Wright54 said:You are something else. 😂 😂 This is just pure comedy. I don't think you realize it, but you're the only one here who seems clueless about what you're actually typing🙂. Aside from losing your cool and trying to insult me and several others, you've churned out a mountain of nonsense. You have zero actual arguments—just the kind of ugly insults a child throws out when they feel threatened, because no rational adult would react this way unless their ego was being bruised. 🙂 I'm not going to lower myself to your level because your reaction makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just drowning in your own muddled logic. You try to act like you're taking a "critical approach" to gender theories—though I doubt your presentation even deserves that label—but since you clearly have no clue, why trash something you haven't even bothered to study? We all risk misinterpreting things, which is exactly why we present arguments here. You, however, have nothing but a few nasty insults instead of actual substance.🙂 Look, just pick up the book and quit being so damn bitter at a world that clearly doesn't care—you’re the only one convinced you've got it all figured out anyway.🙂

I think this outburst just made you my favorite person on this forum. I have a soft spot for stubborn people. Not that I’m much different myself. 🤣

vividorca9 said:No, I seriously cannot believe how stubborn you are, Drew Lee7. 🤣 🤣 😍 🤣

If language is this fixed, monolithic structure that isn't just some dough anyone can knead however they want, then where on earth do you get the right to just invent your own terms? Especially when Judith Butler—a literal authority in the field—wouldn't even agree with you. Where does that leave you, huh? 🙂 🤣

I think this outburst just made you my favorite person on this forum. I have a soft spot for stubborn people. Not that I’m much different myself. 🤣

An adult doesn't have the luxury of throwing a tantrum like a toddler does. 🙂

How deep does your interest in Butler actually go?

Brandon Wright54 said:An adult doesn't have the luxury of throwing a tantrum like a toddler does. 🙂

How deep does your interest in Butler actually go?

Yeah, I get it, but honestly, it’s better to just laugh at this stuff than to lose my mind over it. 😁

True. 🙂 But I'm definitely not claiming to be some expert here. I still have a massive amount to learn. 😉

EDIT: besides that, I fell down the cultural theory rabbit hole a long time ago (let's just say I was indoctrinated) and now there's no shaking it off. 🤣

vividorca9 said:Yeah, I get it, but honestly, it’s better to just laugh at this stuff than to lose my mind over it. 😁

True. 🙂 But I'm definitely not claiming to be some expert here. I still have a massive amount to learn. 😉

EDIT: besides that, I fell down the cultural theory rabbit hole a long time ago (let's just say I was indoctrinated) and now there's no shaking it off. 🤣

You don't need a PhD to find this stuff interesting🙂. For me, gender studies within visual arts is pretty compelling. I've always been fascinated by the distinction between gender and sex—whether gender is just a social construct or its own entirely separate category. Butler is interesting specifically because of that; she argues sex isn't this passive, fixed thing, while gender is dynamic and fluid. It basically turns into that old "chicken or the egg" dilemma. 🙂

Brandon Wright54 said:You are something else. 😂 😂 This is just pure comedy. I don't think you realize it, but you're the only one here who seems clueless about what you're actually typing🙂. Aside from losing your cool and trying to insult me and several others, you've churned out a mountain of nonsense. You have zero actual arguments—just the kind of ugly insults a child throws out when they feel threatened, because no rational adult would react this way unless their ego was being bruised. 🙂 I'm not going to lower myself to your level because your reaction makes it clear you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just drowning in your own muddled logic. You try to act like you're taking a "critical approach" to gender theories—though I doubt your presentation even deserves that label—but since you clearly have no clue, why trash something you haven't even bothered to study? We all risk misinterpreting things, which is exactly why we present arguments here. You, however, have nothing but a few nasty insults instead of actual substance.🙂 Look, just pick up the book and quit being so damn bitter at a world that clearly doesn't care—you’re the only one convinced you've got it all figured out anyway.🙂

I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

vividorca9 said:No, I seriously cannot believe how stubborn you are, Drew Lee7. 🤣 🤣 😍 🤣

If language is this fixed, monolithic structure that isn't just some dough anyone can knead however they want, then where on earth do you get the right to just invent your own terms? Especially when Judith Butler—a literal authority in the field—wouldn't even agree with you. Where does that leave you, huh? 🙂 🤣

I think this outburst just made you my favorite person on this forum. I have a soft spot for stubborn people. Not that I’m much different myself. 🤣

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Honestly, you answered a ton of my questions in that post. Gender was basically invented just to "mask" the fact that lesbians, gay guys, transvestites, and transsexuals are struggling with their biological sex identity. If someone is born female but doesn't want anything to do with being a woman, then whether you like it or not, they have an identity crisis (which is why "gender" exists—it lets them say they're biologically female but "gendered" as a lesbian). 😂 Try explaining that concept to some horny guy on the street. See how that goes. 🤣 Basically, they're going to get annoyed by guys hitting on them, those thirsty looks, or parents asking about boyfriends and kids. It's the exact same deal for gay men.

The difference between "gender" in the Women's Studies Department and a social gender role is that they claim gender is separate from sex—since sex is a biological fact and gender is just "social" (cultural). To me, that's just a delusion cooked up by people having issues with their own biological identity.

And thank God you don't know what gender is. That means you aren't dealing with an identity crisis, regardless of whether you have what you call "feminine" traits.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I don't really get this whole "masculine vs. feminine" thing—is it even real? From what I can see, most differences in how men and women act just come down to how society expects them to react in any given moment. It feels like we’re all just picking up habits from our surroundings—basically performing whatever role we're "suggested" should fit our gender, right?

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Look at it this way—watching football is basically just a tool for guys to find themselves. It’s how we learn to value people based on pure grit, whether that’s physical or mental. Players become these avatars of strength and speed—they crush the opposition, which is exactly what little boys are taught "manhood" looks like. And I'm not talking about someone sitting you down for a lecture; it's that subtle, ambient messaging that hits way harder than actual words. You see it everywhere, too—like how differently we raise boys versus girls. I have a little girl at home right now, and the shift in how my parents treat her compared to me is wild. Already, they’re pushing the whole "girls should be pretty, quiet, and well-behaved" trope. Meanwhile, when I was a kid, I just got told I was being too sensitive and needed to toughen up. Sure, parents are only part of the equation—peers, school, and society all chip away at you through these incredibly subtle, almost invisible ways of programming us.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I wouldn't say I'm driven by anything but my own traits—I'm super emotional, intuitive, and a total introvert. I live for those deep, one-on-one conversations about big ideas or feelings (anything else is just noise). For me, life is all about harmony with the people around me and finding some sense of "purpose"—whatever that actually means. Honestly? I’m not assertive at all; if anything, I’m pretty timid and easily overwhelmed. Not exactly the "masculine" archetype, right? And yet... my word still carries weight. People respect my opinion—often more than my female colleagues—simply because I'm a man and have hit a certain social status through my career.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

People obsess way too much over terminology—all this dissecting and "mechanical" defining of terms like they’re just playing with Lego bricks. To me, gender is just one slice of the whole self-awareness pie—it's just a piece of who I am. It's one of countless constructs within my own identity. At the end of the day, it only ties back to sex when you're actually accepting your own physiology.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

Spot on—that’s exactly how it should be. This whole thing just brings back my old gripe about this "mechanical LEGO stacking" nonsense—you know, that obsession with over-defining everything and obsessing over terminology? Since most people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a biological male might perceive himself differently than what was assigned at birth, they use "gender" as this catch-all term for self-perception. Then, because certain people think they’re the ultimate authorities on what "real" masculine traits look like, they take those different perceptions and label them as feminine. So, we end up with "masculine" and "feminine" gender labels just because certain behaviors are being tagged with specific qualities. It’s all pretty absurd, really—but I guess it’s the only way to try and sidestep biological reality when you're trying to define who you are.

goldenpuma84 said:We’re all just descendants of male and female traits, varying in how much of each shows up... Most women lean more feminine, most men lean more masculine. I wasn't trying to say it's black and white or strip away the complexity, and I certainly wasn't trying to present my view as the absolute Truth. It's just an opinion...

Let's be real, most football fans are guys, even if plenty of women are into it too. Then you've got figure skating, where it's mostly women, though some guys get into that as well... Is this stuff actually taught in school, or is it just how we're wired...

We all have traits that people usually label as the opposite gender. There’s a clear distinction between men and women—anatomical, biochemical, hormonal—which ultimately shapes our psychology. Every individual carries a mix of both masculine and feminine qualities, but I'd bet my life that when you add it all up, your "masculine" traits still take the lead. Am I hitting the mark...

Sure, some guys definitely lean more toward feminine traits. That’s why using "gender" makes sense from a scientific standpoint—it lets us differentiate between social identity and biological sex, which is just a fact we don't get to choose...

But look, here's the catch... By introducing the whole concept of "gender," they're actually admitting there are inherent differences between what we consider masculine and feminine traits. If we follow that logic, it’s totally plausible for someone born female to have masculine qualities. There’s really no reason—as mentioned in the opening post—why a biological woman couldn't just be seen as one variation of femininity, rather than forcing this weird split between sex and gender. As strange as it sounds, labeling it "gender" under the guise of social constructs actually implies that these male and female traits exist independently... otherwise, the term would be redundant...

Basically, there wouldn't even be a need to make these distinctions if we just accepted that a guy who's "gentle, emotional, passive, or gay" is just a man with a different personality type... it doesn't make him any less male, just a less common version of it. But instead, people keep obsessing over trans identities, and that whole mindset really just relies on the idea that "gender differences" actually exist in the first place...

Maybe I'm wrong, but the most fundamental thing in life is just finding a partner to reproduce with and pool resources... There are some pretty huge differences in how men and women actually behave in that regard. That doesn't mean anyone can't choose to find purpose elsewhere—that's their right—but the biological reality is there, whether people want to react to it or not...

I personally just identify as male because I don't really get this whole gender concept...

I’ve gotta disagree with that. We’re all basically hunting for "high-value" partners—it's just that we're conditioned to define "value" differently based on gender. Guys tend to hunt for aesthetics, while women look for strength—think power, success, or social standing. Honestly, it’s just how we're socialized to weigh those specific traits.

P.S. Random thought: male communication is usually blunt, direct, and almost clinical, whereas female speech tends to be more emotional, indirect, and "collaborative." There’s actually a tribe out in Africa where it’s flipped entirely—where that "indirect" style is considered the masculine norm and a sign of true manhood.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I don't really get this whole "masculine vs. feminine" thing—is it even real? From what I can see, most differences in how men and women act just come down to how society expects them to react in any given moment. It feels like we’re all just picking up habits from our surroundings—basically performing whatever role we're "suggested" should fit our gender, right?

Look at it this way—watching football is basically just a tool for guys to find themselves. It’s how we learn to value people based on pure grit, whether that’s physical or mental. Players become these avatars of strength and speed—they crush the opposition, which is exactly what little boys are taught "manhood" looks like. And I'm not talking about someone sitting you down for a lecture; it's that subtle, ambient messaging that hits way harder than actual words. You see it everywhere, too—like how differently we raise boys versus girls. I have a little girl at home right now, and the shift in how my parents treat her compared to me is wild. Already, they’re pushing the whole "girls should be pretty, quiet, and well-behaved" trope. Meanwhile, when I was a kid, I just got told I was being too sensitive and needed to toughen up. Sure, parents are only part of the equation—peers, school, and society all chip away at you through these incredibly subtle, almost invisible ways of programming us.

I wouldn't say I'm driven by anything but my own traits—I'm super emotional, intuitive, and a total introvert. I live for those deep, one-on-one conversations about big ideas or feelings (anything else is just noise). For me, life is all about harmony with the people around me and finding some sense of "purpose"—whatever that actually means. Honestly? I’m not assertive at all; if anything, I’m pretty timid and easily overwhelmed. Not exactly the "masculine" archetype, right? And yet... my word still carries weight. People respect my opinion—often more than my female colleagues—simply because I'm a man and have hit a certain social status through my career.

People obsess way too much over terminology—all this dissecting and "mechanical" defining of terms like they’re just playing with Lego bricks. To me, gender is just one slice of the whole self-awareness pie—it's just a piece of who I am. It's one of countless constructs within my own identity. At the end of the day, it only ties back to sex when you're actually accepting your own physiology.

Spot on—that’s exactly how it should be. This whole thing just brings back my old gripe about this "mechanical LEGO stacking" nonsense—you know, that obsession with over-defining everything and obsessing over terminology? Since most people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a biological male might perceive himself differently than what was assigned at birth, they use "gender" as this catch-all term for self-perception. Then, because certain people think they’re the ultimate authorities on what "real" masculine traits look like, they take those different perceptions and label them as feminine. So, we end up with "masculine" and "feminine" gender labels just because certain behaviors are being tagged with specific qualities. It’s all pretty absurd, really—but I guess it’s the only way to try and sidestep biological reality when you're trying to define who you are.

I’ve gotta disagree with that. We’re all basically hunting for "high-value" partners—it's just that we're conditioned to define "value" differently based on gender. Guys tend to hunt for aesthetics, while women look for strength—think power, success, or social standing. Honestly, it’s just how we're socialized to weigh those specific traits.

P.S. Random thought: male communication is usually blunt, direct, and almost clinical, whereas female speech tends to be more emotional, indirect, and "collaborative." There’s actually a tribe out in Africa where it’s flipped entirely—where that "indirect" style is considered the masculine norm and a sign of true manhood.

Just one question though: how do you explain the differences between males and females in the animal kingdom then?

Those are psychological traits, not biological ones. But because of certain gender roles, specific psychological traits might be presented or pushed as strictly "male" or strictly "female" depending on the time and place.

Drew Lee7 said:Just one question though: how do you explain the differences between males and females in the animal kingdom then?

Those are psychological traits, not biological ones. But because of certain gender roles, specific psychological traits might be presented or pushed as strictly "male" or strictly "female" depending on the time and place.

Well, humans aren't animals—or at least we have the potential to be more than that. I don't think it's "appropriate" to draw massive analogies from the animal kingdom.
Define what counts as a gendered trait versus a psychological one if you want to establish some kind of "terminological framework." Honestly, my answer to your unstated, yet implied, definition is already buried somewhere in the replies to goldenpuma84. Go "sniff around" there for a bit and you'll find it. I'm out—don't have time to beat my brains out on this keyboard. Gotta head downtown for a drink, and the laundry isn't going to fold itself. 😉 😁

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Your "facts" have already been picked apart by others; I’m not wasting my breath repeating them. The reality is you’ve just rattled off a bunch of nonsense you think is valid, purely because you disagree with gender studies. You’re contradicting yourself constantly, and when we call out the lack of logic, you just lash out and call us parrots or nerds.😂 Look, plenty of people disagree with you. So, let me ask: do you actually have a real argument, or is this just going to be more elementary insults and a total misunderstanding of the subject matter?

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Hahaha, this is just too much😂. Oh, I'm sure you've had plenty of little arguments. I'm far too grown up to be bickering over my role in those circles—that's playground stuff. Word of advice: stop embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no idea how you're coming across on this forum.

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Just because you, the "Great Expert," refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't recognized. You're free to hold whatever isolated beliefs you want in your own head, but if you're going to jump into a debate, try bringing actual substance to the table instead of making claims that blame women for being frustrated because they won't accept forced social roles.😂😂

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

So, you’re out here pushing a Sigmund Freud quote—only to turn around and preemptively deny that any of his theories actually hold water. Real smooth.😂This is honestly way too good.

Look, regarding Sigmund Freud—I’ve never been a fan of his take on female sexuality myself—but that specific idea I brought up, where gender identity isn't some biological destiny but rather an undefined subject position formed once a person enters society and the world of symbols... that’s pure psychoanalytic theory. It just got repurposed for gender identity later on. If you’re out here hunting for a specific quote to back up a concept like that, it honestly suggests you don't grasp the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue about. Ever heard of the Oedipus complex? No? How about identifying with a parent through the choice of a love interest? Or even Lacan’s updates to those ideas? It’s a bit much to demand a "gotcha" quote when you clearly haven't even brushed up on the basic theories. 😁 If you’re actually looking for answers, go pick up Sigmund Freud’s "On Female Sexuality"—look for that 1991 edition out of a US university press—specifically pages 23 through 39. That's where the real info is.

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

I’m not claiming that it is—I haven't said that once in this entire thread—so that's your own conclusion right there. What I am saying is that you can't just brush off the existence of gender categories that easily, especially not using the kind of logic you're trying to pull here...

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

What kind of agreement are we even talking about here? You’re out here trying to convince everyone that gender categories don't exist—or rather, you just refuse to acknowledge the concept and scream about some "difference" that you somehow equate with gender. I definitely don't buy that, so how exactly are we supposed to be in agreement? It's pure illogic...

Drew Lee7 said:I wasn't insulting anyone; I was stating facts. And the fact is, you just can't grasp a very simple text. Honestly, even an average high schooler could understand the main points of this. Instead, you're trying to lecture me on theories from the Women's Studies Department. 🤦

I’ve been arguing against those Women's Studies premises since they first popped up (not that I care to speculate where you were during that time). You just don't seem to get that I couldn't care less about Judith Butler and her theories. To me, the whole concept of gender from a Women's Studies perspective is just some feminist and queer invention. It simply doesn't exist. You can claim to believe in little green men if you want; hey, it's your right. People write thousands of pages about that, too.

How am I even supposed to talk to you when you don't even know what it means to provide a citation? I politely asked for a quote from Sigmund Freud, the specific work it came from, the page number, the edition... and instead, you hand me some feminist's work that probably just references him. I really don't give a damn about feminist interpretations of Sigmund Freud. Just give me the actual quote from Sigmund Freud, then we can go from there. Not that I think Sigmund Freud is some divine prophet or that his writings are holy scripture. But how can we have a conversation when you don't even understand the basics of citing a source? 🤷

And the most ridiculous part is you acting like gender theory is some universally accepted scientific standard, when in reality, it's mostly pushed by feminists and the LGBT community. That's a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of the American population.

The saddest and most pathetic part of all is that you're actually fighting me on something I'm not even opposing you on—in fact, I actually agree with you. It’s tragic, and honestly embarrassing, that you don't see that. You don't even realize where my disagreement with Women's Studies actually lies.

Look, I never said language was some unchangeable, monolithic thing. All I said was that it has its own set of rules.

And as for Judith Butler, I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. ☕

Look, you argued that language isn't just some lump of clay we mold however we want. But sometimes you don't need to say something explicitly for the intent to be obvious. You did exactly that with your choice of words. "Has its own rules"? For someone throwing around accusations that I don't understand linguistics, that's a pretty weak (anti)argument on your part. Language is a system, and the social order reproduces itself through speech. Rules evolve—otherwise, we'd all still be using the same linguistic patterns from 200 years ago, perpetuating outdated notions of masculinity or femininity. We are all speaking subjects who gain our subjectivity by entering into a linguistic system. It becomes a massive problem when such a fundamental social code starts reproducing stereotypes—or are you denying their existence too?—and begins framing certain perspectives as absolute truths.

As far as I can remember, you haven't actually said anything about Butler.☕

George Morris2 said:The whole transgender situation confuses me. For instance, a man who wants to transition usually expresses that identity by wearing women's clothing, applying makeup, maybe trying to mimic female body language, and taking an interest in stereotypically feminine things.

What's confusing about all of this is that makeup, fashion, and much of that behavior are culturally conditioned. Just like how culture dictates that women make the salad at a backyard BBQ while the guy handles the grill. 🙂
Female movement differs from male movement because women have different hip structures and less muscle mass; when a man tries too hard to imitate those movements, it looks awkward and, as people often say, gay.

Some biological differences that come to mind are that a woman can become a mother, can engage in vaginal intercourse, and is generally physically weaker, which might make her less prone to resolving conflicts through violence.

Of course, I know there are neurological differences too. Even though I'm a woman, I have a "male brain"—meaning I'm better at spatial awareness, math, logic, and technical stuff. I'm not particularly interested in interpersonal drama or social circles, but those traits don't make me feel like a man; they just lead society to label me as tomboyish because I played with trucks as a kid. But again, that's culturally conditioned.

So, looking at the big picture, I don't quite get what's happening with trans people. It seems to me like they define their gender identity based on culture. A man who identifies as a woman wants to wear skirts, wear makeup, and read Cosmopolitan—he wants things shaped by culture rather than, say, wanting to be a mother.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just identify as a man who likes to dress up, rather than being a trans person trying to change your sex?

Then again, I remember feeling like a boy when I was a child simply because I preferred playing with boys' toys. 😁 If I had grown up in a more conservative town where there was heavy resistance to that, I probably would have been even more convinced that I was a boy in a girl's body.

I understand that sexual attraction to a specific gender exists regardless of culture, and that there are "male and female brains," but is gender identity itself independent of culture? Or do we build it based on our reflection in the mirror, sexual attraction, and our interests—essentially the culture we live in because society expects us to act according to our sex?

I think it's actually a pretty simple concept. People try to convince themselves of something so hard that they end up trying to convince everyone else too...
In terms of gender identity, it seems like people are striving to be something they aren't and can never truly be. That drive to make sure the world sees them a certain way makes them lean even harder into those common stereotypes to prove their point...

Look, Drew Lee7, you can't just jump into a debate with people who have already settled on a specific set of terms and expect to win by simply trying to steamroll them with your own vocabulary—especially when, BTW, you haven't even bothered to explain how your terminology actually works.

Brandon Wright54 said:Your "facts" have already been picked apart by others; I’m not wasting my breath repeating them. The reality is you’ve just rattled off a bunch of nonsense you think is valid, purely because you disagree with gender studies. You’re contradicting yourself constantly, and when we call out the lack of logic, you just lash out and call us parrots or nerds.😂 Look, plenty of people disagree with you. So, let me ask: do you actually have a real argument, or is this just going to be more elementary insults and a total misunderstanding of the subject matter?

Hahaha, this is just too much😂. Oh, I'm sure you've had plenty of little arguments. I'm far too grown up to be bickering over my role in those circles—that's playground stuff. Word of advice: stop embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no idea how you're coming across on this forum.

Just because you, the "Great Expert," refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't recognized. You're free to hold whatever isolated beliefs you want in your own head, but if you're going to jump into a debate, try bringing actual substance to the table instead of making claims that blame women for being frustrated because they won't accept forced social roles.😂😂

So, you’re out here pushing a Sigmund Freud quote—only to turn around and preemptively deny that any of his theories actually hold water. Real smooth.😂This is honestly way too good.

Look, regarding Sigmund Freud—I’ve never been a fan of his take on female sexuality myself—but that specific idea I brought up, where gender identity isn't some biological destiny but rather an undefined subject position formed once a person enters society and the world of symbols... that’s pure psychoanalytic theory. It just got repurposed for gender identity later on. If you’re out here hunting for a specific quote to back up a concept like that, it honestly suggests you don't grasp the fundamentals of what you're trying to argue about. Ever heard of the Oedipus complex? No? How about identifying with a parent through the choice of a love interest? Or even Lacan’s updates to those ideas? It’s a bit much to demand a "gotcha" quote when you clearly haven't even brushed up on the basic theories. 😁 If you’re actually looking for answers, go pick up Sigmund Freud’s "On Female Sexuality"—look for that 1991 edition out of a US university press—specifically pages 23 through 39. That's where the real info is.

I’m not claiming that it is—I haven't said that once in this entire thread—so that's your own conclusion right there. What I am saying is that you can't just brush off the existence of gender categories that easily, especially not using the kind of logic you're trying to pull here...

What kind of agreement are we even talking about here? You’re out here trying to convince everyone that gender categories don't exist—or rather, you just refuse to acknowledge the concept and scream about some "difference" that you somehow equate with gender. I definitely don't buy that, so how exactly are we supposed to be in agreement? It's pure illogic...

Look, you argued that language isn't just some lump of clay we mold however we want. But sometimes you don't need to say something explicitly for the intent to be obvious. You did exactly that with your choice of words. "Has its own rules"? For someone throwing around accusations that I don't understand linguistics, that's a pretty weak (anti)argument on your part. Language is a system, and the social order reproduces itself through speech. Rules evolve—otherwise, we'd all still be using the same linguistic patterns from 200 years ago, perpetuating outdated notions of masculinity or femininity. We are all speaking subjects who gain our subjectivity by entering into a linguistic system. It becomes a massive problem when such a fundamental social code starts reproducing stereotypes—or are you denying their existence too?—and begins framing certain perspectives as absolute truths.

As far as I can remember, you haven't actually said anything about Butler.☕

1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

vividorca9 said:Look, Drew Lee7, you can't just jump into a debate with people who have already settled on a specific set of terms and expect to win by simply trying to steamroll them with your own vocabulary—especially when, BTW, you haven't even bothered to explain how your terminology actually works.

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

Honestly, I’m done going back and forth with you. As much as this is entertaining, there has to be a line somewhere. To wrap up this thing that isn't even really a debate—though we both know we’re acting like it is—I’ll just take the liberty of quoting a few of your own contradictions...

Let's talk about sexual minorities—homosexuals, transvestites, transsexuals.

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

Their stuff. Problem. It all comes down to identity...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

On social roles...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

And finally, regarding gender and gender theory...

Drew Lee7 said:1. Glad you finally admit you have no idea what's going on.

2. Oh, I definitely have one. Like a clown or a forum nutcase. Whatever. Just don't forget that a king's jester's "madness" was often nothing more than a mirror held up to the king's own stupidity.

3. It's just like how your belief in something doesn't make it true. Believing in something isn't proof of anything.

4. And what now, am I supposed to run to the library? 🙄 Why don't you just write out the quote you think supports the idea of introducing "gender" as a distinction from "sex"? Let's see if that conclusion can even be drawn from the quote, and only then will I tell you if I agree.

5. "You claim!" Hahahaha... To most people, this is theoretically incomprehensible, let alone something that could be proven or disproven. This isn't the result of a scientific experiment that can be verified in practice. It's a theoretical construct that you can choose to accept or not. I don't accept it. In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid and just pure self-delusion by the group of people who pushed it.

6. Once again, you're missing the point. I disagree with gender theory, not with its terminology. Those terms exist and serve a purpose within that theory. I'm not denying the terms; I'm criticizing the theory itself. But to get that, you actually need to know something about scientific methodology, logic, and argumentation.

7. Linguistic rules are inherent to language. But try explaining that to someone who knows nothing about them. What you're writing has nothing to do with that fact. Honestly, that's just how your "arguments" always work. You simply shift the goalposts and start proving something else entirely. You do it all the time.

8. Why would I? 🤷

What kind of argument is that, really?

I've gone over this plenty of times already.

The whole concept of gender was cooked up just to try and separate social identity from biological reality. It’s impossible. It’s fundamentally impossible. You’d have to be blind to even attempt to argue otherwise. And honestly, that is exactly what gender theory does.

Of course you can't be bothered to actually engage when you haven't even addressed a single point I've made. It’s pretty obvious you just don't have an real argument.

What part of my statements is tripping you up? I clearly stated that both transvestism and transsexuality remain listed as mental disorders in the International Classification of Diseases to this day. Plus, plenty of other "pointless" paraphilias are still grouped under sexual preference disorders—homosexuality is the only one that was removed. Those are just facts.

That said, I'm not saying homosexuals or transvestites need to be "cured." It’s obvious that transvestites deal with gender identity issues, regardless of how politically incorrect it is to say that nowadays. On the other hand, transsexual people often seek treatment themselves—meaning surgical "changes" to their biological sex. So, for them, their condition is a clear-cut disorder they want to fix. But the question remains: is that method actually effective, and does it even count as a cure?

You just don't get that the concept of "gender" was basically invented to negate reality: the fact that some people struggle with their natural sexual role (how they relate to the opposite sex) or their gender identity (transvestism, transsexuality). I see why you're confused by me saying gender *is* gender identity; I guess I should clarify: in gender theory, it's often actually a disordered gender identity. That’s why they needed to create a distinction between gender and sex—so they could justify a disordered gender identity. If everything is so perfect and wonderful, then tell me this: why do so many homosexuals want to be parents? Why don't they want to sleep with the opposite sex (since they lack that desire), which is the basic biological prerequisite for becoming a mother or father? And you're telling me that isn't a disorder? So what are they doing then? They're chasing "rights" that don't naturally belong to them based on their own nature: namely, parental rights. Who's stopping them from being parents if not themselves?

And now, I’ll probably confuse the hell out of you again by completely leaving bisexuals out of this whole equation.

What thesis? I’ve already told you my take on your arguments—the same ones you just keep recycling. First off, you keep treating gender like some imaginary social contract. We’re living in an era where gender is a constant, complex discourse; it’s way too nuanced to just lump gender together with culture and sex together with nature.

You’re claiming gender theories argue that gender is merely a byproduct of culture, while culture itself is just a result of innate male and female traits—suggesting gender is just an interpretation of sex. That’s just wrong. Gender actually shapes how we perceive sex as a pre-discursive reality.

There is no such thing as a "natural" gender role. There are only gender roles. You seem to be missing the distinction between gender role and gender identity. Identity is biologically rooted—it’s how a person is perceived as male or female—whereas a gender role is a social construct, something we absorb through socialization. These roles are built on concepts of difference, usually based on myths passed down through generations. They aren't "natural." Even when talking about innate traits, nature isn't that black and white. You can find various chromosomal variations in both women and men, yet society is what sets the "average" criteria to decide which gender someone belongs to. Sex isn't just defined by anatomy; it’s a cocktail of hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs. Beyond just XX and XY, there are other combinations, yet Western society treats them as anomalies or illnesses, forcing everything into a binary. Society does that, not nature. As for gender identity, that’s also heavily dictated by society. It’s split between how we see ourselves and how society assigns a label to us. Physical perception alone doesn't dictate it. If the people you call "marginalized" aren't thinking within these imposed categories, then maybe it’s the society that needs changing, rather than discarding everything healthy as "insane." Why shouldn't gay people have the desire to pass on a legacy or start a family? Would I lose that right if, by some misfortune, I lost my reproductive organs or had a different chromosomal makeup but still identified as female? Of course not—I’d have the option to adopt. Would I be diagnosed with a disorder then? Would my needs suddenly be considered "insane"? No. Because despite lacking certain reproductive components, I would still be accepted within the established category that allows people to have children.