[Moomoomoo309]

That is not an accurate description of how the human sex hormones' traits are embodied, intersex people exist, sex chromosome disorders exist, and conveniently ignoring those people makes the model simpler but denies a more complex underlying truth.

[appreciatorBus]

All biological categories are fuzzy around the edges. The existence of small numbers of people on those edges with truly physical intersex conditions in no way invalidates the usefulness of the categories for science, medicine, and our ability to protect the physically weaker of the two.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-there-are-exactly-tw...

Wear whatever kind of clothes you like, and sleep with whoever will have you, but stop demanding the world to see you as something you aren’t.

[Moomoomoo309]

Yes. They are fuzzy around the edges, and those people on those edges should not be lumped into the binary categories because they don't really apply to them. For example, if an intersex person has both sets of genitalia, both underdeveloped, what are they? Usually, the answer is one is removed, and that's that, but what if they don't? They don't fit into either the male or female category. I'm not saying the sexual binary is useless, but saying "there are only two sexes" is entirely disingenuous when you know it not to be true.

Additionally, men don't need to protect women anymore, not really. We're not out here hunting bears, we're commuting to the office. A woman with a gun or pepper spray could incapacitate the strongest man in the world, we don't really need to hold onto these ideas in the same way, they don't map onto our lives that way anymore. The instinct still exists, and that's fine, but we don't need to emulate our forefathers' social structure in societies that don't reflect that.

[throwawayqqq11]

And here comes your simplicity again ...

Yes, the edges are fuzzy but biology and sociology, the 2 domains defining gender, are not one dimensional. There are many ways an individual could step out of the majority cohort with different body, brain or social perception traits. There are many gender determining factors.

Imagine a empathetic, low testosterone and muscle structure male that loves to be a kindergartener. Lets say he develops homosexual tendencies in his 30s and tries to late transition in his 40s. The role he played in society never changed, "he" has always been the same feminine guy caring for children but somewhere in is life, your perception of him changed. At what stage in his life would he fall out or into your category of "protecting of the weak"? What if the same person transotions before puberty and is indistinguishable from a 'real' woman from the outside?

I could keep toying with you by using your simplicity against you, since there are fuzzy edges everywhere.

> stop demanding the world to see you as something you aren’t.

What if its you seeing someone as something they arent?

If you dont like that transwomen want to be called and regarded as "real" women, just remind yourself about the complexity of what a "real" women is and that this person primarily just wants to fit in the role and is satisfied with that social, and not biological, definition of a "real" women.

In essence, the entire topic is about broad category mismatches, human dignity and respect and cognitive biases around out groups and disgust. And no matter how long you keep stare on ot, your dick wont give the full picture.

[appreciatorBus]

None of that has anything to do with there being two sexes. There can be two sexes, even if members of those two sexes chose among an infinite variety of ways to express themselves sexually, even if members of those two sexes, sometimes choose to modify their bodies to resemble the opposite sex that they are. It doesn’t change the underlying reality of our species having two immutable sexes.

Pointing of the reality of biological sex does not imply disgust, hatred or even dislike.

It is possible to acknowledge that there are only two biological sexes, while also believing that basic human rights include the right to wear atypical clothing, and the right to body modification, the right to sleep with whoever will have you. These are the rights we can all have and share. They are not in conflict.

> empathetic, low testosterone and muscle structure male that loves to be a kindergartener

I think you are confusing the concept of a biological category, and the concept of a cultural stereotype. Everyone knows that secondary sex characteristics such as height, muscle structure, etc normally distributed (i.e. on a Bell curve) and that the two overlap. The fact that the two overlap does not change the fact that there are two curves, nor does it imply that members of either curve have any requirement to dress or act a certain way.

That said, an adult who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health.

> want to be called and regarded as "real" women

… however, getting what you want is not a human right. I want to be called and regarded as a real billionaire. That not everyone complies with my desire is not a violation of my human rights.

> I could keep toying with you

lol that’s not what’s happening here

[throwawayqqq11]

First:

> That said, an adult who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health

This sentence is insane and reflects on a narrow and egocentric worldview, which is a bad prospect for further conversation.

You think i am not toying with you, because you dont fully grasp my example.

> I think you are confusing the concept of a biological category, and the concept of a cultural stereotype

The feminie kindergartener is a biological male with a female-ish brain. I added one more important dimension besides your genetics/reproductive organs angle. This alone should be enough to make you rethink your clear dichotomy of biological sex and culture/behavior.

Is the development of the brain only biological or only cultural. (This is a trick question. The nature vs nurture debate is decades old and messy but certainly non-binary.)

You can only regard the kindergartener as male, when you exempt all his female traits, including biological ones. Why is this not simplistic or ignorant? And ontop of that, calling such a person mentally ill is just evil to me.

[appreciatorBus]

This is what I said:

> That said, an adult human who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health.

No mention of male or feminine, simply an observation that an adult of any sex who says they “love being a kindergartener” is not an example of a healthy and well developed adult human.

If you consider my opinion “evil”, an opinion surely shared by 99.9% of humans who’ve ever existed, then I think you’ve got a pretty unique definition of the word evil.