Sex, scientifically, is determined by the kind of gametes an organism produces in sexual maturity. Males produce small sex cells, females produce large sex cells. There is no overlap among mammals (i.e. human sex is “binary”)

Gender is a concept made up by feminists with no consistent definition, use mainly to confuse.

Which restrooms should they use?

It's only after you dive into the science at a collegiate level or higher that you learn there's a small percentage, maybe 1-2% of people, for whom this binary understanding is not a good model.

I'm not saying it's bad to only have a high school understanding, just that it's an incomplete understanding.

I wouldn't deliberately misgender someone just to be a jerk, but the idea suite you're referencing had way less purchase 7 years ago or so, it'd be considered a niche view.

It's kind of incredible to go from there to "this is a settled mandatory philosophical viewpoint and disagreement is banished" in such a short time.

We used to think that being gay was a mental disease. We now recognize it as something that many animals have as a part of their population, including humans. 20 years ago, being gay was like, pretty much not accepted in public and the science was developing.

Trans identities are coming a bit later, but we're still learning and developing our models.

It's massively overstating things to call it "settled science" or even "science" at this point. It's philosophy in theory and public opinion in practice.

Consider: you would probably agree with me that a butch tomboy and a valley girl fashionista are both women. But they represent different extremes on what we, socially, agree femininity is. We might say the butch woman is less feminine than the valley girl.

Likewise, we'd typically say Clint Eastwood is more manly than, say, Bill Gates. A similar spread of "manliness" for men.

If we're on the same page so far, we're comfortable with the idea that gender has a spectrum - two separate spectrums, one for men and one for women. I don't need you to agree that they intersect at all, just that the concept of "manliness" and "femininity" are not single points in their respective genders.

Now let's look globally. Are the same spectrums universal? In the Middle East, east Asia, Russia, central Africa, and Polynesia... Does feminity look the same?

I'd argue no. A hijab or niqab might evoke feminity in some parts of the world but not in others. Following this, there must be a social component to feminity and manliness. And this component is not genetic. So there must be "something" that exists that's a social construct related to sex.

What should we call this social construct, assuming we agree there is no chromosomal need to wear a niqab?

Academically, gender has evolved to be the word that describes the cultural expectations placed on men and women. These expectations allow for some flexibility for culture and personality.

If you are comfortable with this so far, and we can agree on the above, I'm happy to dive into the fluidity, non-binary, and forget separation of gender and sex as a follow on discussion. But if we disagree about the above, we should sort that before moving on.

I'm not even saying I have a problem with those norms, I like everyone, I just think it's an overreach.

It's an accurate observation to say that higher-income liberals tend to think this way and enforce these norms but the norms themselves are in the realm of culture and politics.

Similarly, it's accurate to say conservatives tend to think people who flout traditional gender norms matched to their genetics are weirdos. Not scientific on their part either.

But also, gender is beyond just US liberal and conservative. Plenty of cultures around the world and throughout recorded history have had third genders and trans people, and they were not considered "weird". I believe sociologists are attempting to review human behavior across all spans and across cultures and compare even to animals (there are recorded instances of animals fulfilling reversed gender roles for their species).

Where this all gets cleared up is that you should use more specific terms such as "Gender norms", "gender presentation", etc. Someone of the male gender can present as very feminine, but that doesn't make them a woman. It is not bad that their gender presentation is at odds with the gender norms expected of their gender, but their gender is not fluid and doesn't change. Only their gender presentation.

I realize I'm probably tilting at windmills here, but if everyone realized that gender is simply sex as it relates to social contexts and got more specific with their terminology, there'd be a lot less talking past each other.

There's a wide variety of genders in the rest of the world as well. While this is a newer concept in American and Western cultures, there are non male, non female genders dating back to mesopotamia.

And sure, there's historically been a wide range of gender roles, norms, and expectations, but there's only ever been two genders.

I like to invite folks, rather than make assumptions about their preferences. The invitation is open to the community, of course!

I'd argue that most women, in fact probably 99% or more, fall into a fairly straightforward definition - two X chromosomes, raised to behave like whatever their society expects from women. (I think we can agree that "woman" might have different cultural/social expectations depending on where they were raised? E.g. in some parts of the world a niqab or hajib is expected, for instance.)

But there exists a small group of people who don't fit in with that definition. They might have been born with a penis but two XX chromosomes, they might have been born without functional ovaries or an abnormal set of genitalia.

They might have been born with XY chromosomes but never developed a penis.

These folks are intersex, and are often raised as women.

I would say, in these cases, that we might agree that they are women - their chromosomes might not always be XX, but all their features and body development and social upbringing in the world suggests that they are women.

Then we come to another group. A group whose bodies are functionally male but who feel a deep revulsion at being a man.

But before we dive in to that case, are you comfortable with the other two cases and have any disagreements about the 99% or intersex cases?

The goal is to explain that it is not as simple as XX or XY, not to say trans and intersex people face the same challenges.

To say that gender issues are piggybacking on homosexual issues is revisionism, full stop.

Trans people have spanned history, and much like people who experience same-sex attraction have experienced a variety of acceptance and rejection based on the culture at the time.

In what way is this piggy backing? In addition, as far as western contexts pre-GLBT, both transgender and same sex attracted people have been related since pre-nazi Germany and both were persecuted by the Nazis (to be clear, this is not an invitation to invoke Godwin's Law, nor me comparing you to a Nazi. It's just an example of a case where gay and trans individuals have been joined together).

E: Fixed spelling and expanded second paragraph.

Everyone reading this needs to look up John Money. The founding father of "sex and gender are different".

That doesn't change the truth that gender and biological sex are both characteristics of the human experience - usually they line up, and sometimes they don't.

I think it does, as that's the foundation of the notion. Prior to that, they were completely interchangeable and authors would use "gender" to mean "sex" where it was considered more crass to say "sex". Gender is just a euphemism for sex.

It was believed that since they were not the same thing it would be possible to safely raise someone as an arbitrary gender despite that not being the case.

The failure is in that both gender and sex are biological characteristics, and at that point in time Money believed that gender was strictly social - which is _clearly_ inaccurate.

In short - Reimer was forced into the life of being a trans person, despite having been born cis.

Are there peer reviewed papers or something on Arvix that explicitly dive into the "beyond high school level of biology" where sex is not defined at the cellular level (wrt Autosomes)? I am not interested in debating the sociological version, to be perfectly honest.

But there exist people whose sex doesn't work into that model.

Consider some 46 XX intersex people. In these cases, outside conditions (typically an endocrine imbalance in the mother) leads to the development of a penis, and the loss of a vagina. These children may be raised as boys. Similarly, some XY people are born with autosomal defects that prevent them from effectively processing testosterone into dihydrotestosterone. As a result, their bodies develop into what we would consider typically female. They are often raised as girls.

There are dozens of conditions similar to these.

"XX male syndrome" might be one example of specifically what you are looking for - people who are scientifically discussed as male despite having XX chromosomes, a typically female karotype. It can be caused by autosomal origins

Ultimately, we cannot remove the discussion of sociological science from biology, because we make choices for kids in these cases. And those choices differ depending on culture. The US preferentially gives intersex people male gender, while Saudi Arabia does the opposite, even for the same conditions. In this way, even biological sex has some social component.