The distinction between sex and gender is relevant not only for the issue of trans folk, but also for how any society’s expectations of men and women might differ from another society’s.
Are people on other threads saying that priests have a genetic predisposition to molest children?
This is not about science, it's about sociology and modern social constructs.
Yes and that is exactly what they were: men who lived and dressed as women. But underneath the clothing they were still men. The whole world understood this until about 10 years ago.
That's funny, because you've been relying entirely on facial hair, and chromosomes and other physiological attributes up.till now. Suddenly it's all a social construct? If you say so. Then it becomes really easy: how you socially identify and present are the attributes that determine gender.
It's been a half century, scooter. You know what else we didn't have a half century ago? The Web. Cellular Smartphones. I suppose they don't exist for you either?
Not to either science or sociology. Both are fine with the social and scientific distinctions.
Lol, you are seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up, man. When I ask if someone is a guy or gal, it's so I can recognize them based on their gender roll ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ expression. I don't care in the slightest what is actually between their legs, unless I plan to ◊◊◊◊ them, in which case I usually already know.
Your continued assertions continue to be factually wrong. Repeating them, while ignoring argumentation, does not do anything productive.
Gender, being separate from sex, is a social construct. Sex, is not.
....aaaaaand your back to ignoring posts and repeating yourself. I'm out.
Not ignoring, just disagreeing.
Many people would say that your position is incredibly bigoted against trans people. If you truly believe that trans women were in fact women and should be treated equal to biological women, you would not allow for any discrimination whatsoever. So they say..
Many would. Many others would say Jesus will cast me to Hell, too. But I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ what these hypothetical people would say, because it was you and I discussing it. Or more accurately, it was me discussing it and you ignoring posts and repeating yourself. Which gets boring fast.
I do not, nor did I say so. See? The written word is not your strong suit.
You can freely discriminate in a variety of circumstances without being a bigot. A gynecologist can say they will not perform an exam on a fully transitioned transwoman, because the hardware is not their department. Yet they are not bigoted at all. That's why the arguments of your hypothetical debaters falls flat.
You don't want trans women to participate in women's professional sports. Many people call that bigotry.
See? You can't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ read.
Huh.
I like how you took the extra time to snip out the part that makes it crystal clear.
I’m going to say that even if Eddie Izz ard, I think he izzn’t wanking.