[hk__2]

> In what way is the statement you quoted false?

"We all mostly want the same things, feel the same things and do the same things" is contradicted by any studies on consumer behavior that takes gender into account. Of course deep inside we’re all mostly the same, but as a society we constructed a gender polarization that has very real effects on what we want, how we feel and what we do. If I tell you that my friend likes to wear high heels and a red skirt you can hardly pretend the probability they are a woman is only 50%.

[d-z-m]

I think all your objections are subsumed by the "mostly" qualifier in the OPs comment. I don't think OP would disagree that the percentage of people who buy high heels is highly skewed towards women. I also don't think OP was referring to consumer behavior in their comment, so your pushback on those grounds seems needlessly contrarian to me.

[hk__2]

I cited consumer behavior as an example, but open any book about sociology and gender studies and you get plenty of examples on how there is a large gap in things we want/do/feel between men and women. That’s obviously a construction, biologically there’s nothing that causes much difference in what we want/do/feel. That’s probably where the disagreement is: my point is that even if theorically (= biologically) there shouldn’t be much difference, in practice (= in our societies) there is one.

[scotty79]

Good marketing strategy is to associate your product with identity assumed by significant number of customers. Studies of consumer behavior show mostly this. That gender based marketing works successfully. However regardless of gender customers want some food, clothing, shelter, mobility, entertainment.

> If I tell you that my friend likes to wear high heels and a red skirt you can hardly pretend the probability they are a woman is only 50%.

If you tell me that your friend wears a pendant with Libra zodiac sign I'd estimate probability of her being a Libra higher than 50% too. It doesn't mean identifying as a Libra is something natural, innate or objectively meaningful or indicative of the qualities you value.

[hk__2]

> If you tell me that your friend wears a pendant with Libra zodiac sign I'd estimate probability of her being a Libra higher than 50% too. It doesn't mean identifying as a Libra is something natural, innate or objectively meaningful or indicative of the qualities you value.

That’s not what I’m saying but maybe I misunderstood your point.