Yes, you did. You said some "abnormal" and "deviant" people CHOOSE (Your capitalization) to "play the game incorrectly" because it meant they were not having sex in a way which is "in normal circumstances for the purposes of procreation". What other purposes for sex are there by the explanation you provided?
Just so we're clear, there isn't an argument. You're just suffering from cognitive dissonance. http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
So sex and gender are two completely different things? If so, how so? And there is no such thing as race from a scientific standpoint?
If "sex" is the most scientifically unassailable distinction, why replace it with anything else? If "gender" is optionally determined, and anyone can simply claim any gender they like, then wouldn't that make the entire concept of "gender" so ambiguous as to have no meaning, scientific or otherwise? And if it is so nebulous as to mean anything to anyone, how can it in any way be considered as a suitable replacement or addendum to the scientific rigidity of "sex"? If anyone can simply choose any gender - and which is no more personally dis/agreeable to me as someone identifying as a tree, unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster - mustn't that acceptance lie beyond the very bounds of science, as it has no credibility or place within it?
WARNING: Rabbit Hole Ahead These are really deep topics, Tenny. In terms of sex and gender the former represents biologic attributes while the latter are attributes society has levied on the sexes. Absolutely related, but separate. It's not a perfect example but the "What are little boys made of" nursery rhyme is something that comes to mind regarding society and gender. Race is a very interesting topic. There is really no genetic basis for race. However, we often use the term race to describe what are actually geographic and evolutionary characteristics. It's been a while since I've studied the topic but I recall the way we utilize race is extremely problematic due to its fluidity among individuals as well as geographies. There are no clearly defined scientific parameters to support race - it's a wholly society-driven concept.
Because we don't describe anything by "genetics." Hair color? Whatever it is, presently. Most people aren't genetically overweight with BMI in the 30s, but instead just fat. Guy in a wheelchair. Is he tall? Genetically. But descriptively, not so much. We put very little into genetic descriptions already.
What race is a person who has a Chinese mother and a black father? Do we have to say the black father had two black parents, and the Chinese mother had a great great grandfather that was English, so she's less Chinese than the black father was black? Race is absolutely an identity thing, that society projects on people with nice little government forms.
Precisely. President Obama is actually a very good example of the race concept. In the same country you have people who consider him black while others didn't feel he was black enough to be considered the first 'black president'. Race is a colossal sham.
If we use Tenny's scientific "sex" requirement example, we're all African. And in the old red white and blue, we're all African Americans. So we've solved the race issue, though some might disagree...
Completely? Perhaps not. Different? Yes. Sex refers to chromosomes and biological reproduction, organs, etc. Gender is a concept. In western culture, it was traditionally binary. Now it is less so. There are still X and Y chromosomes along with testes and ovaries. That didn't change. what a "man" is or can be has. There is no such thing as race from a biological standpoint. There is from a cultural, social, and historical standpoint. Sometimes in medicine, social groupings are used including race. There are also shared genetic lineages in minority groups. There is no genetic or hereditary "race" boundary, however. I is all fluid. People of African descent may tend to have more of a particular trait and less of another within their population than Scandinavian people, but both genes do occur within the population.
So, why is science - or anyone else - concerned with "gender" at all? It seems that the word "gender" is being intentionally interjected to muddy what are now distinctively clear "sex"-specific waters. North Carolina could have saved themselves a bunch of time in just passing a "sex" bathroom bill, it seems. Henceforth, I no longer recognize any gender, but only sex alone. Additionally, I now choose to believe that we are all bi-curious African Jews, but not the real devoted sort, who frequents the synagogue and wears a yamaka in our daily lives.
