Let's have a look at my original reply
> Sex is defined by the gametes one produces. Female for few large gametes, male for many small gametes. If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual.
We can leave away the part about asexuality, the point still stands; sex is a biological trait related to the gametes ones genes and biological does (or would) produce.
Whereas gender is
> [..] the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex. Your gender does not necessarily have to correspond to your biological sex.
You on the other side take the position;
> Gender is sex.
You can go with that. But I've found it more useful to distinct between gender and sex since there's a lot more to human sexual behavior than just the biological mechanism underlying the dimorphism. Human's have culture - vastly different cultures - that all have a different interpretation of what it means to behave like a male or to behave like a female. And some people have the desire to not behave like their biological sex.
An example; wearing a skirt is considered female, in western societies. So if I - as a male - wear a skirt, I'm drawing attention and potentially ridicule upon myself. Why is that? My sex is unchanged, I'm still male. But I don't behave according to the societal expectations of how males have to behave.
> From What is asexuality?[1]:
This links represents neither my position nor my arguments about asexuality, so I will just ignore all said about them.
Yes, let's, because it didn't support your point, though I see you continue to assert its validity based on a claim to usefulness. Let's address that.
> > From What is asexuality?[1]:
> This links represents neither my position nor my arguments about asexuality, so I will just ignore all said about them.
Actually, it does, because it points out (via its inane existence) that the distinction you make between sex and gender is really a repurposing of the word gender where temperament or personality already sit.
> An example; wearing a skirt is considered female, in western societies. So if I - as a male - wear a skirt, I'm drawing attention and potentially ridicule upon myself. Why is that? My sex is unchanged, I'm still male. But I don't behave according to the societal expectations of how males have to behave.
Firstly, "wearing a skirt is considered female" is an equivocation. "Female" as an adjective is entirely different to female as a noun. Even if your statement is true, applying the adjective does not bestow noun-status on the object. Licking your feet may be feline but it does not make you a feline.
Additionally, males have certain strongly associated temperaments and personalities (e.g. lower disgust response, higher aggression), as do females in turn. These lie on a spectrum, if not some multi-dimensional shape. There are feminine men, or men that have higher disgust response than most other men, or men that enjoy musicals (I'm one), or men that hate sport… or men that enjoy wearing women's clothing. These are not gender, these are temperament and personality. Male is their gender. Enjoying X is their temperament or part of their personality. Expressing higher levels of disgust than most males is temperament. Being disagreeable or aggressive is personality.
Taking up the stereotypical behaviour of other people is not a "gender identity" or an identity at all. The clothes do not maketh the man a woman, and I only used to hear that kind of nonsense from those mired in stereotypical thinking who were often truly bigoted. Plus ça change.
So, grammatically it's not useful - and that's even before discussing pronouns (Lord, save us, this atheist begs you!); in biology it's entirely erroneous; and in life it's undermining free speech, endangering actual females, confusing the hell out of children, and helping close to no one.
That in turn was a reply to me and I'm the one who replied to the top level comment that leads to here, from my comment, so you are the one jumping in, and if you're "correcting" a reply to me while agreeing with the gist of their comment, then it is, in essence, still a reply to me but with enthusiastic notes left in green ink.
> > So, your use of asexual in this conversation, no it makes no difference because it is wholly irrelevant.
> Sure, that's why I'm so confused why you get so hung up about it.
I might rejoin that I care about truth, and if you get to add corrections why don't I? But no, you made said point in support of a larger point (a new understanding of human sexuality). Since said point is irrelevant, and incorrect, it doesn't support the larger point. That's how reasoning works.
I do appreciate you moving so deftly to disown your own point though, I wouldn't call it moving the goalposts unless you are the posts. Perhaps goalposts are an identity now. Speaking of which:
> I don't really comprehend what you are trying to say here. Can you maybe rephrase it?
Gender is sex. Therefore it is not a spectrum. However, you claimed it is different, that things like asexuality exist in humans. Since, as pointed out, that is objectively wrong but since there are people who believe in "gender identity" who claim to be asexual and that asexuality is a gender identity different from one's sex then we should examine that too. From What is asexuality?[1]:
> Asexuality is a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality.
Orientated towards what? Nothing? And yet:
> While most asexual people have little interest in having sex, they may experience romantic attraction. Others may not.
Contradictions are fine in this world of illogic. Furthermore:
> Asexual people may be attracted to the same sex or other sexes
This is clearly nonsense, predicated on other nonsense, but it also already comes under the classification of that known as temperament or personality. I can imagine Samantha Jones in her scathing and nonchalant manner explaining "Yes, my darling, I know that you say you're asexual but what you really are is an uptight, slightly ugly girl who wants to be a housewife but needs an excuse for failing to attract anyone, anyone at all." Presumably she'd throw in something about blowjobs too.
As to the pseudo-science part, that's been covered elsewhere[2].
[1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327272
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair (yes, the whole article)